Jack Abbott
MP for Ipswich · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“T6. I recently visited Northgate high school in Ipswich with the Children’s Commissioner. As ever, the pupils were thoughtful and articulate about what they needed for the future, but the subject of digital and AI came up a lot. They said that they need greater access to public services and skilling up for future employment.”
“As the Minister says, conversion therapy is dangerous, widely discredited and frankly barbaric, and it is about time we got rid of it. Suffolk Pride’s fringe festival starts next month with Pride Blooms. I ask the Minister to make a powerful statement today, and to say that this terrible practice will end under the Labour Government.”
“I thank the Minister for her detailed speech. I look forward to working with her over the coming months and years on these important issues. I thank everybody who has contributed and shared not just the experiences of their constituents—as awful and harrowing as they often are—but some deeply personal stories.”
“Women learn from a young age to hide their pain away because they must be overreacting and to feign headaches and stomach pains, migraines and food poisoning. More than 1 million women mask period pain sick days every year, because they feel unable to tell their boss the true reason.”
“Despite years of chest pain and breathing difficulties, she was refused referrals to a thoracic specialist and ended up seeking a private opinion. She lives in daily pelvic and chest pain, constantly deals with breathlessness and spends many days bedbound—thankfully not today, Monica.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and could not agree more. For women with endometriosis who may have already waited years for a GP even to mention the word, and who have already been utterly failed by institutionalised and deeply structural medical misogyny, this is a complete dereliction of duty. The human cost of inaction is devastating.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Jack Abbott, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“For families posted in Suffolk, that will mean homes that meet modern standards, transparent complaints processes and a system that recognises that housing is not a perk but an operational necessity.”
“and gallant friend the Armed Forces Minister is a highly decorated individual, but should he so wish, I am sure he would have the title of chief barista. Housing is also critical. The establishment of the Defence Housing Service through the Bill is long overdue. For decades, defence housing has suffered from under-investment, fragmented responsibility and a “fix on fail” culture that has eroded trust among service families. Last year’s defence housing strategy represents the biggest change in military housing in half a century. The Bill gives that strategy institutional form. The new Defence Housing Service will be responsible for improving quality, increasing availability, regenerating defence land and, crucially, placing a service ethos at the centre of housing provision.”
“That recognition reflects not only the scale of their impact, but the depth of their understanding that mental health is not a niche issue but a continuum, and that early community-based support saves lives. During Armed Forces Week, I was proud to attend Combat2Coffee’s “Bigger Breakfast” in Ipswich, alongside the Armed Forces Minister and the former Ipswich Town and England captain, Terry Butcher. Terry has long been a passionate advocate for veterans’ wellbeing, informed by his own family’s experience, and his support for this work underlines why strong, compassionate mental health provision for veterans truly matters. Hundreds of serving personnel, veterans and cadets came together not for speeches or ceremonies, but to talk, connect and support one another. My hon.”
“Combat2Coffee exists to improve the mental health and wellbeing of the armed forces community and their families. It does so through something deceptively simple: connection. Through coffee mornings, outreach, volunteering and employment pathways, it rebuilds the sense of belonging that many veterans lose when they leave uniform. In 2025 alone, Combat2Coffee supported more than 200 veterans through outreach activities, with more than 2,000 people attending armed forces community coffee mornings. Earlier this year, the organisation’s volunteers were awarded the King’s award for voluntary service, which is the highest honour a voluntary group can receive.”
“For far too long, that promise has been honoured inconsistently: veterans have struggled to access healthcare, families have faced disruption in their education, and housing standards have far too often fallen short of what is acceptable. By strengthening this legal duty, the Bill moves the covenant from an aspiration to accountability, it embeds fairness in decision making, and it ensures that public bodies right across our country take responsibility for delivering it. That legal framework is vital, but legislation alone is not enough. Covenant delivery also depends on strong community institutions. In Ipswich, one such institution is Combat2Coffee, a community interest company, founded by ex-soldier Nigel Seaman, that has become a national model of veteran-led support.”
“He was just 19 years old. His mother, Lorraine, was right when she said that President Trump’s comments were an insult to his legacy and that of his colleagues. Turning to the armed forces covenant, the Bill fulfils a clear manifesto commitment by fully enshrining the covenant in law. It extends the covenant’s legal duty beyond local authorities and public bodies to include central Government Departments and the devolved Administrations, and it broadens the range of policy areas to which due regard must be given. This matters deeply. The covenant is a promise from the nation that those who serve or have served and their families will be treated with fairness and respect, and will face no disadvantage because of their service.”
“From Bawdsey on our coast, where the world’s first operational radar station became a decisive force in the battle of Britain, to the air bases that have hosted generations of service personnel, our county has quietly but decisively shaped Britain’s security and, indeed, our history. The innovations developed in Suffolk saved lives, shortened the war and changed the course of our history. That legacy reminds us of the fundamental truth that our national security is rooted in people, places and communities, and this Bill recognises that by placing people, service personnel and their families at its heart. At this point, I would like to reflect on President Trump’s comments last week. Ipswich’s Aaron McClure, of 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, died alongside two colleagues on active service in Afghanistan.”
“It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill. Every five years, Parliament is asked to renew its consent for the maintenance of our armed forces in peacetime. That constitutional requirement, dating back to the Bill of Rights in 1688, is more than a procedural necessity; it is about Parliament renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve it. This Bill reflects the changing nature of warfare, the evolving needs of our service personnel and their families, and our duty—collective and enduring—to ensure that those who defend our country are supported not only in uniform, but throughout their lives. As the Member of Parliament for Ipswich, I represent a town and a county deeply entwined with the story of our national defence. Suffolk’s contribution to the armed forces is profound and long-standing.”
“From the radar pioneers at Bawdsey to the volunteers roasting coffee for Combat2Coffee in Ipswich and across Suffolk, our local contribution to the armed forces reminds us that defence is not simply confined to bases or battlefields; it lives in innovation, in service and in community. For those reasons, on behalf of the many serving personnel, veterans and families in Ipswich and right across Suffolk, I am proud to support the Bill.”
“By increasing the maximum age of recall, enabling seamless transfers between regular and reserve forces, and granting the Secretary of State power to authorise recall for warlike operations, the Bill strengthens our ability to respond to emerging threats while respecting the voluntary nature of reserve service through appropriate opt-outs. The provisions on uncrewed devices are similarly necessary. The threat posed by hostile drone activity around defence sites is real and growing, so granting defence personnel the power to use approved equipment to detect, prevent and defeat drone-related offences is not an expansion of power for its own sake, but a proportionate response to a changing and growing threat environment.”
“My hon. Friend is completely right. What I was just about to say encapsulates what my hon. Friend says: stability at home underpins readiness, retention and morale. Readiness itself is another core theme of the Bill. In an increasingly uncertain world, with evolving threats, rapid technological change and heightened global instability, the measures relating to reserve forces reflect the reality of modern defence—that experience matters, that flexibility is essential, and that the boundary between regular and reserve service must be more permeable.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In my opinion, the proposal for three unitary councils put forward by all the district borough councils of Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Babergh, East Suffolk and West Suffolk clearly shows that this is not a partisan project, but a set of proposals put forward by politicians of all stripes. It is a collaborative effort across political parties, grounding in evidence and focused on outcomes. I believe it would be simpler for residents: there would be a single point of contact, as mentioned earlier, and more accountability, ending the confusion over who is responsible for what. Anyone who has knocked on doors will have heard residents say, “I don’t care who it is—I just want the council to fix it.” That is a sentiment that is shared quite widely.”
“Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that unitarisation or local government reorganisation alone is not a magic bullet. The things the hon. Member describes are due to severe underfunding. Pothole and road maintenance funding fell to around £17 million a year, down from £20 million, although it crept up again. We are putting much more money into that. We saw bus services shredded in the previous 14 years, but we now have the biggest upgrade to bus services since 1998. Some of those things will help; I believe that unitarisation will help to deliver better public services, and provide more of a single point of accountability for voters, but change also comes down to leadership, culture and investment. In Suffolk there is a credible, detailed and ambitious alternative to the status quo.”
“It certainly cannot be about the preservation of power, status or the status quo. It must be about improving services, strengthening accountability and restoring trust. The Government have set the direction. We were elected with a mandate for change and we are delivering on that. Devolution is fundamentally about people, ensuring that communities such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine their own futures. That is why referendums are not needed to delay or derail this progress. What we need is leadership, honesty and the courage to build a system that finally works for the people it serves.”
“Nearly £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has reportedly been spent on social media advertising for its own single campaign, with further tens of thousands earmarked for so-called “Alice in Wonderland” leaflets, which seek to ridicule all alternative proposals. That is not engagement; it is propaganda, and I urge the Minister and the Department to look at it carefully. At a time when potholes are going unfilled and children with special educational needs are being failed by that same county council, voters and residents in my area are entitled to ask why public money is being spent on spin, rather than services. The council’s behaviour betrays a lack of confidence in its own case and a disregard for local people. Local government reorganisation must be about the future. It is about not just tomorrow, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years.”
“Funnily enough, that leads me directly on to my next point: crucially, the three unitary councils proposal strikes the right balance: it is big enough to deliver but local enough to care. A greater Ipswich council, alongside strong East and West Suffolk authorities, would allow each area to play to its natural economic strengths, make faster decisions and champion its communities with strong local voices. Although this has been a constructive debate in my part of the world, the conduct of the county council has at times been deeply disappointing. Rather than making a positive case for its own proposal, it has repeatedly resorted to misleading and aggressive tactics.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; there is a balancing act to be achieved, ensuring that we have the size and scale of councils to deliver public services efficiently, while also rooting them in their local communities. That is why I am backing a proposal for three unitary councils over the proposal from the Conservatives at Suffolk county council for a single unitary council. As part of the local government reorganisation, places such as Ipswich, which I hope will turn into a greater Ipswich authority, would still need to retain a town council, and the parish council element would be really strong. I used to be a parish councillor, so I recognise the value and importance of those communities and having that very local representation as part of this.”
“What the right hon. Gentleman describes is already happening. Suffolk county council represents the entire county. The argument he is making is already playing out at the moment. We are having these conversations. This has already happened. We have rural councils making decisions about urban issues and vice versa. I do not think it is either/or.”
“As I asked earlier, when the hon. Member did not correct me, did he have an issue when his former leader—either his current former leader or the one before—delayed elections as Local Government Minister? Considering his recent conversion, did he also speak out when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) postponed elections when he was Secretary of State for Local Government? Does he liken those individuals to dictators as well?”
“I think there is a short-term memory issue here. The hon. Gentleman talks about referendums, but the Conservative Government held a whole heap on mayoralties in 2012 and then ignored all the outcomes. He says he values local government, which is incredibly welcome, but his party hollowed out local government funding, and we have seen the cost of that. When the Conservatives were in power, they suspended a number of elections to consider local government reorganisation, including those involving the Leader of the Opposition—why has there suddenly been this volte-face in the last few weeks?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”