Jack Abbott
MP for Ipswich · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“At Churchmans House, investigations revealed problems extending beyond external cladding—missing fire barriers and inadequate protection around structural steelwork. Leaseholders faced demands for eye-watering payments and the threat that they might have to leave their homes.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some have considered bankruptcy just to get out; others have thought about handing back the keys and simply walking away. It is heartbreaking that anyone should reach that point through no fault of their own.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People unknowingly slept in their beds every night—some for decades—without knowing how deeply unsafe their building was and how much of a threat to their lives it posed. No one ever never returned to Cardinal Lofts. The building is not fit for use.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Years of disruption were followed by the trauma of evacuation. My team and I worked with residents and the Government to secure funding for repairs in November 2024.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for the intent she has shown in the Bill that is before us. It is a privilege to be sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—I know that his mission in this place is to fight for justice for so many of his constituents who have been left alone for so long.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Building owners and others with repairing responsibilities must act. That means an end to indefinite delays as residents live with fear and financial uncertainty, trapped in unsafe buildings. Crucially, those who ignore their responsibilities may face substantial financial penalties, criminal prosecution and further enforcement action.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
377 held · 372 searchable for Jack Abbott. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“My hon. Friend is saying that there is no mechanism to remove the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Actually, paragraph 4(5) of new schedule 1 says: “The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person— (a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office”— I think that addresses a lot of the concerns that she has been expressing— “or (b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.” There is a mechanism in the new schedule that would give the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour’s Football Governance Bill is a landmark moment for safeguarding a financially sustainable and well-governed football pyramid. If we get it right, the prizes on offer for Ipswich and towns across the country are immense.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More than that, it speaks to our civic pride and the sense of community that has been brought to our town under the leadership of Mark Ashton off the field and Kieran McKenna on it. That has not always been the case. We, too, have seen our fair share of dark days and what poor leadership does when its rips out the sense of community and the links to businesses, academy players and so on. We have heard many examples today from Coventry, Portsmouth, Derby, Wigan, Reading—the list goes on and on. It is no exaggeration to say that when football clubs run into financial or other off-the-field issues, that impact is not just felt on the economy of the town; it has the potential to rip the heart and soul out of a place too. These clubs are not just commodities; they are our community’s crown jewels.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. No one in Ipswich is yet tired of reminding the world that we are now a premier league town. As I like to remind my colleagues in Essex and Norfolk in particular, we are the only premier league town in the east of England too. One of the biggest issues that gets raised with me on the doorstep is the regeneration of our town. Having a financially secure and sustainable football club goes a long way to advancing that agenda. The economic benefits to our town include thousands of people travelling into our town centre and filling up the pubs, restaurants and shops. It has been estimated that premier league status has brought a huge £200 million to our town this season alone.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Recent figures show that hundreds of small businesses have been opening up across Ipswich, and I am proud that we are now ranked in the top 10 of areas in the country where the number of SMEs is growing. However, I am ambitious for my town and want to go further. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, as part of our skills agenda, young people in towns such as Ipswich have the chance to find skilled, long-term, well-paid employment with SMEs, and, in doing so, boost public procurement and our local economy?”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting that amendment. We have often debated the level of detail that should be set out in the Bill. I fully appreciate that she does not want to include the whole training manual; I will not discuss my amendment, which concerns culture and trauma-informed care, because I recognise that it is much too detailed in that respect. However, does she agree that where possible, and where it does not create unintended consequences or loopholes, we should reassure not just colleagues across the House but members of the public, who want to see these sorts of thing on the face of the Bill?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To give the Committee a sense of clarity, is the hon. Gentleman saying he wants the finances to be in the public domain, so that if provision were to go down a private route, everyone would know what an individual is charging for these services? Or is he suggesting a cap on services? What is the intention of his amendments?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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—”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not your argument, Sir Roger; it is my hon. Friend’s argument. I apologise. To follow the basic premise of my hon. Friend’s argument, she is saying that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested for what we are discussing. However, by definition, neither is this amendment; if anything, it is even worse, because words such as “ability”, which we are discussing here, have absolutely no basis, as was admitted by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. On that basic premise, my hon. Friend will not agree with any amendment that is tabled today, because none of them is tried and tested. Is that correct?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they are seen as an expert support to the primary decision maker, that decision maker would need to decide whether a psychiatrist was needed in every case. We know from Oregon over the years that psychiatrists were involved very frequently at the beginning of the process, and now they are involved by request in around 3% of completed assisted dying cases. We do not have data on what the involvement is across all requests.”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Psychiatrists sometimes assess capacity and make the determination, but it is usually about psychiatric intervention and issues that are within their area of clinical expertise, such as care and treatment, capacity assessment around the Mental Health Act 1983 and whether somebody is able to consent to their treatment. In the Bill, I am not absolutely clear whether the psychiatrist is considered to be a primary decision maker on whether somebody should be eligible based on capacity, or whether their role is to advise the decision maker, who would be the primary doctor or one of two doctors. Should a psychiatrist be involved in every case? If there is a view that psychiatric disorders should be assessed for, and ideally diagnosed or ruled out, in every case, a psychiatrist might have a role.”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dr Price: If I take you to thinking about what an assessment of capacity would normally look like, if we think about clinical practice, a psychiatrist would normally get involved in an assessment of capacity if the decision maker was unclear about whether that person could make a decision. The psychiatrist’s role in that capacity assessment would be to look for the presence of mental disorder, and at whether mental disorder was likely to be impacting on that person’s decision making. They would advise the decision maker, and the decision maker would then have the clinical role of thinking about that information and assessing capacity with that in mind.”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q My question is also for you, Dr Price. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been really clear in its statement that we as parliamentarians have to consider the outstanding questions about a person’s capacity to decide to end their own life, and whether it can be reliably assessed, and you particularly cite the implications for those with mental disorders, intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions. Do you believe that anyone requesting assisted dying should be assessed automatically by a psychiatrist, or that certain criteria should have to be met for a psychiatric assessment to be undertaken?”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q4. The Ipswich northern bypass is a project of local, regional and national importance, and on which the future of our town and county hinges. However, this critical project has been gathering dust for years, repeatedly blocked by people who refuse to act in our long-term interests. The Prime Minister has set out how our Government will back the builders over the blockers, so will he now back the builders in my town and make this a project of national significance through our plan for change?”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dr Green: Obviously, it would be great if we worked in a system where doctors had all the time they needed to deal with their patients. I believe that the Bill mentions a duty to provide information from the chief medical officer, and having read the Bill, to me it seems very much like this might be in the form of a website or leaflet. We believe that it is important that patients should be able to access personalised information, and we would like to see an official information service that patients could go to, either as a self-referral or as a recommendation from their GPs or other doctors. That would give them information not just about assisted dying, but about all the other things that bother people at this stage of their life, and it would mention social services support and palliative care.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q This might sound like playing devil’s advocate, and I fully appreciate that you do not want to reduce this to a tick-box exercise, as you described it. Some might argue that the risk of what you describe is that it creates a lottery, because you would be relying on doctors to use their personal judgment as to when to have that conversation. For example, if a patient and doctor do not have a particularly close or long-standing relationship, the doctor may not know what the signs are, so the patient, who may need to have that conversation, may never have it. The risk is that you would be reliant on good relationships forming over time and doctors using their intuition, so that some patients will have the conversations they need but others will not.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Sure. That is a really fair argument. Again, what I am driving towards is the point you were trying to make earlier, which is—I think this is fair to say—that countries that do not implement assisted dying improve their palliative care system. Clearly, that did not happen in the UK, so my guess is that that is not direct causation, is it? There are a number of other factors, although I agree that— Dr Cox: The NHS is very different from any other jurisdiction—”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that around 95% of tribunal hearings, if not more, find in favour of the families, all cases should now be heard in public. I urge the Minister to look not only at the ombudsman process, but at those tribunal hearings.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairship, which has allowed everybody to contribute. This is a national issue, but SEND services in Ipswich and Suffolk have been in a desperate state for more than a decade. Like everywhere else, we need specialist places and specialist professionals. We welcome the massive boost in funding provided by the Government. However, as hon. Members from across the room have said, culture and accountability are crucial. One way in which we can start to inject a bit more accountability and scrutiny into the system is to hold a review of the ombudsman process, which Members have described today as combative, complex and exhausting for so many families. In particular, tribunal hearings are held in public only in exceptional circumstances.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Spen Valley would certainly be sympathetic to that and that we can look to do so, if it is necessary. However, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. We have to ensure that we move this Committee along at a decent pace and hear from all these people. Our job is to scrutinise the suitability of the Bill, not the principles. On that basis I oppose the amendment, although I am not against some of the names that have been proposed. Maybe there will be an opportunity to hear from them in future, but I do not think that we can get into a situation where we are removing some names and adding others. We would be here all week if we did, so I will be opposing the amendment.”
House of Commons21 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is wrong to imply that any of those individuals will use their personal feelings or principles and discount their neutrality. Are we really saying that the British Medical Association, the judges who have been mentioned or the chief medical officer will put their own views in place of their expertise and knowledge? I should say for the public’s benefit, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley ensured that all Committee members were able to submit hundreds of names for consideration. In my view, she has come up with a panel of witnesses who are incredible experts in their field and have long-standing expertise in these areas, and we should absolutely listen to them. I am sympathetic to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who said that we may need extended time to hear from more people. I know that my hon.”
House of Commons21 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to briefly address the implication or inference that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who is leading the Bill, has not produced an incredibly balanced set of witnesses, or indeed a scrutiny Committee. I put it on record that in principle I am in support of assisted dying, but I did not feel that I could support the Bill on Second Reading, as I had a number of concerns including the strength of the Bill. We will be listening to evidence and discussing the issue not on the basis of principle, but on the basis of the strength of the Bill, the deliverability of the Bill and the number of safeguards, among other things. We are not here to debate the principle—that is a really important point. Points that have been made about the suitability or otherwise of the people coming to speak to us.”
House of Commons21 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly because I know that many of my colleagues also wish to speak. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). This does not have to be a partisan issue, but equally we have to acknowledge the situation as we find it, not the fantasy that we wish it to be. The reality is that we have had 14 years in which decisions could have been made.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is our chance to seize the opportunity for greater energy independence, and for us—including my home county of Suffolk—to seize the opportunity to be world leaders in the energy transition. We cannot keep going around the houses, dithering, delaying and pretending that this stuff will not happen. It might sound good to constituents back home, but I grew up in that area—”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗