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 7 of 8.
“Q Dr Cox, may I follow up on one of the things you said earlier? Forgive me if I have misunderstood; I want to be clear. Earlier, I think you said that in the countries that do not have assisted dying, the state of palliative care has improved more quickly than in countries that do. Is that a fair representation of what you said? Dr Cox: In European countries and American states.”
“Q The whole panel has painted—and we have heard this previously—a pretty bleak picture of the state of palliative care in the UK. Would you say that it was better or worse than it was, say, 10 years ago? Dr Cox: I suppose it depends who you are. If you live in one of the postcodes where you cannot get palliative care, if you are socially deprived, if you are a member of an ethnic minority or if you have a lung cancer diagnosis, you will not get very good palliative care in this country. I think that is awful.”
“Q I guess what I am driving towards is that simply not having assisted dying is not necessarily causation for improvement in palliative care. In this country, for example, we have not seen palliative care improve from where it was 10 years ago, the last time this debate came to Parliament. Dr Cox: The position we would ask you to consider is whether this is the right time to bring in a law to give people a choice of assisted dying, when they do not have the choice to have good palliative care.”
“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—”
“Q Sir Nicholas, I am going to paraphrase a little bit, but you said people with Parkinson’s will never get a terminal diagnosis, so this Bill is no use to you at all—I think you used stronger language than that when you made your original statement. Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I was sort of taken by surprise when she asked the me the question in the pub, and I would not have phrased it like that in court 50.”
“They do say that the experts in Parkinson’s are the people with it, but the people you talk to are quite clear that it is impossible to predict and it is a really complex thing. That is why this arbitrary—I use the word technically—six-month period is a problem. If a doctor opines conscientiously and honestly, unless the Parkinson’s patient has already developed pneumonia, sepsis or something of that nature, or complications from falls—the common reasons for death—you will never get that six-month ticket. That is the thing; that is the problem.”
“Q Sure. Let us phrase it in a different way today. Would you be able to expand on your thinking there? Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Parkinson’s is such a complex condition. The medically qualified amongst you will know this—there are so many symptoms, and with the rate of development and the direction of travel, it is an enormously complex condition to know. That is why it is commonly accepted that you do not die from Parkinson’s, you die with Parkinson’s, and it is almost impossible to give a mortality rate as to when that is likely to happen—almost impossible. When I was doing my research, I was slightly surprised to see that last year 6,000 death certificates had Parkinson’s written on them.”
“Q In your view—I think you kind of said it before, and I would hate to put words in your mouth—are you saying that Parkinson’s sufferers and other similar— Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Neurodegenerative.”
“There are probably quite a few of them, for one reason or another, whose life expectancy is short, but their pain is well-managed. I do not believe that assisted dying should necessarily be available for them. I do believe very strongly—this is not an expansion, but in my view, a more appropriate focused redefinition of terminal illness—that it should be, as in Spain and in Holland, focused on suffering.”
“Q In your view, and that of the rest of the panel, is there a way to legislate to include them? Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It has been suggested that I want to expand the definition of terminal illness. I do not want to expand it. I want to redefine it so that it is more appropriately focused, in my opinion, on what this Bill should be about, which is the relief of suffering. That is what I believe the Bill should be about. You should get the permission to have an assisted death if you are suffering intolerably within five months of death or seven months of death—there should not be this arbitrary line. Moreover, it should not be open to people who are not suffering, but who happen to have a six-month life expectancy.”
“They are already going through so much and, as Dr Spielvogel said, you cannot have an informed decision-making discussion with a patient if they do not have all the options available for discussion.”
“For physicians to do their jobs properly and deliver care to people, and for people to actually have a choice, physicians need to be able to discuss it with their patients. Dr Kaan: I will just piggyback on that. I cannot count the number of times I have given a presentation or a talk to communities, and people—usually family members of someone who have died, not using this law—have come up to me afterwards and said, “Thank you for what you said. My loved one was interested in having this information, or wanted to talk to their doctor about it, but their doctor never brought it up, so we weren’t sure if we should be bringing it up.” It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them.”
“Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.” Then I say, “I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.” The number of times that people look at me and say, “You can do that? That’s an option here?” is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it.”
“That turned out not to be in our law, but that idea really hampered our ability to take care of patients, so I would strongly recommend that there not be anything like that in your Bill. People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors—we all know that this exists—even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option. I eat, sleep and breathe this. I am a primary care physician, and when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, “Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo.”
“By making people go through a court appeal in addition to two qualified physicians, as well as the waiting period, I think that you are going to limit access for people who desperately want this option. It seems like that might be baked into your law, but I would say that that is a concerning feature to me. I think that you are going to limit access that way. Dr Spielvogel: Something that it turned out was not in our law, but everyone thought that it was for a few years, and it really limited our practice, was that many people were under the impression that the physician could not bring up assisted dying with the patients, and that the patients had to bring it up themselves.”
“Q I will keep my question quite short. Is there anything about the law in either of your jurisdictions where you think there could be improvement, and that we can learn from in drafting our legislation here? Dr Kaan: The thing I have been reading about that is concerning to me is the court approval that you seem to have written into your law. I heard your discussion this morning about how that might be done and whether it is a committee or the High Court and so on. I think that that is really going to limit access to this, and that makes the process a much lengthier one. Again, these are people at the end of their life. People are not looking, by and large, to cut off a huge amount of their life; they are looking to shorten their death, not shorten their life.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“We have to be honest with people. There will always be opposition to any development. I grew up in Suffolk; I know that there will be opposition to the grid upgrades. There is also opposition to solar farms in the west of the county. Obviously, there is opposition to Sizewell C and things like it, but that cannot get in the way of progress. There is also the Green party bingo card—opposing all the projects; well, we definitely cannot go down that route either. This is about opportunity. There is an opportunity to say that we will be transitioning to renewable energy to fulfil our mission and the guarantee that we made to working people at the election.”
“The hon. Gentleman says, “Here we go”, but it is absolutely relevant to this debate. Yes, the Conservative Government passed the Banner report—well done. That is the big achievement of the last 14 years. There was a fundamental opportunity over the last decade to recognise where we were going as a country, and what we needed to do. Those decisions were consistently kicked down the line, and now we are here. The window in which we have to operate is incredibly narrow. We essentially have five years to meet the transition, which we have to do. Yes, underground cabling will cost more, but also there is a significant time delay, too. It is not a 2030 timeframe; it is a 2034 one. Let us get over the fantasy of a magical offshore grid connection that will solve everything way more cheaply and quickly. It just does not exist.”
“I will finish my point because it is directly related to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Central Suffolk. We already have pylons running through that part of the world. We have Mendlesham mast, which can be seen from miles around. We also have Eye airfield, big business parks, warehouses and farm buildings. We already have infrastructure in place.”
“It is not horror at all; it is infrastructure that people desperately rely on. The right hon. Gentleman might want to live in a fantasy in which costs do not matter and there are no trade-offs. Well, that is not the case. I also say to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: East Anglia and the fenlands, which he mentioned, are critical, because if we do not build the energy transition infrastructure that we need, guess what? There is no landscape. We will be surveying everything from a boat. That is the reality.”
“We can choose whether or not we are prepared to stand up for Britain’s energy security; we can choose whether or not we are prepared to throw away billions of pounds in taxpayers’ money on fantasies that will never come to pass, or act now to slash bills; and we must choose whether or not we are prepared to destroy vast swathes of land, which underground cabling would do, and commit lasting ecological damage. I know which I would prefer, and which my constituents prefer, and I am unapologetic about choosing opportunity over wasteful fantasy projects.”
“The hon. Gentleman has just made a case for why we must crack on, and stop dithering and delaying. There is a history of doing bad things slowly, and that should never be repeated. It is not an excuse to do nothing now. We cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road. We cannot keep relying on our constituents to foot the bill for an inefficient, unstable energy system—which is exactly what we have inherited. We can be as bipartisan as we like, but we have to accept the reality. We cannot keep heaping costs on to our constituents and businesses for our failure to invest properly in the system, which we now have five years to do. To conclude—I am conscious that I want to bring my colleagues in—this debate has illustrated the choice we face between two competing visions for the future.”
“T5. When I met the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom, General Zaluzhnyi, last month he raised the importance of ensuring that Ukrainian children and young people who have been forced to flee this terrible conflict in their own country receive the support and education that they need, so that they can be the generation that rebuilds Ukraine. What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Ukrainian Government and his ministerial colleagues to ensure that that happens?”
“Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether that is down to the previous Government’s incompetence or lack of effort, or whether it is symptomatic of their more general recklessness?”
“In 2021, the previous Health Secretary said in relation to covid-19 contracts that “where a contract is not delivered against, we do not intend to pay taxpayers’ money”. —[ Official Report , 23 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 758.] Judging from the figures that highlight the enormous scale of covid-19-related fraud, that was little more than a promise made and a promise broken by the previous Government. I am pleased that our Government have made it a priority to recoup as much of that money as possible from scammers who profited at taxpayers’ expense. However, four and a half years on from the first lockdown, my constituents in Ipswich, many of whom sacrificed so much during the pandemic, will be wondering why it has taken this long, and a change of Government, to take the issue as seriously as it deserves.”
“The new funding is a much-needed statement of intent from this Government, and one that will be welcomed by families in Ipswich and Suffolk and across the country.”
“I return to a specific issue that has been mentioned many times in this debate, special educational needs. That is now very much a national crisis, but it is one that we have been battling in Suffolk for the best part of a decade. A £1 billion injection into SEND is much needed as our Government look to repair a broken system starved of funding, resources and focus. No, money alone will not solve the multitude of issues facing families desperately trying to get the support their children need—we need bold and wide-ranging reforms too—but new specialist staff and places do not come free, and unfunded reforms are a complete non-starter. SEND cannot be treated as a Cinderella service any longer.”
“That is underlined by the choices this Budget makes—not always easy, but necessary: the choice to protect pensions with the triple lock, the choice not to raise national insurance, income tax and VAT for working people, the choice to unfreeze income tax thresholds so that people have more money in their pockets, the choice to increase carer’s allowance, the choice to raise the minimum wage to record levels, the choice to fund thousands of new homes for families in towns such as Ipswich and far beyond, and the choice to start rebuilding our NHS, our schools and our infrastructure. Those are the choices we have made to fix the foundations of the economy and our public services, to invest in Britain’s future and to deliver the change that people voted for.”
“They talk as if our hospitals and our schools were not left to crumble; as if they did not savage local government finances and the services so many people rely on; and as if the criminal justice system had not been pushed to the point of ruin. Even when they admit to the desperate state of mental health, special educational needs, dentistry, social care, homelessness and poverty, they talk as if those things had nothing to do with them. It is always someone else’s fault. This Budget ends the cycle of Conservative decline and restores hope that things can get better. Just like our NHS, Britain might have been broken by the Conservatives, but we are not yet beaten.”
“This Budget was about rebuilding Britain after 14 years of incompetence, negligence and chaos. Conservative Members—all four of them who are left in the Chamber today—cannot even bring themselves to apologise for the inheritance that they left, not just to our Government but to the country as a whole. They should have spent the past few months reflecting on why, as we can see before us, the country rejected them so profoundly. Instead, they engaged in yet more infighting and asked people not to believe their own eyes. Even now, they tell people that the economy has never had it so good—that they should ignore their depleted bank accounts, the increased mortgage rates they have to pay, and the state of our high streets.”
“It was a former Prisons Minister who identified that short custodial sentences have a higher reoffending rate than sentences served outside prison. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at using technology to curtail offenders’ freedoms outside prison and ensure that we cut the cycle of crime?”
“T3. Earlier this year, it was reported that over 1,000 cases at Ipswich Crown court are outstanding. At the last count, each case was taking an average of 249 days to be dealt with, with 144 cases unresolved for two years or more. What can the Minister do to reassure my constituents, as we look to clear the terrible backlog left by the previous Government?”
“I thank the many Members in the Chamber who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, and the fantastic organisations that have been mentioned. With the new Labour Government’s commitment to take action on this issue, we have a real opportunity to put fans back at the heart of live music.”
“The odds are increasingly stacked against ordinary people and the grassroots industry in favour not just of big corporations, which are far more shielded from the problems I have outlined, but of ticket touts and scammers. We must fix that. I welcome the new Labour Government’s commitment to make arts and culture more accessible to ordinary people, from tackling ticket touts to broadening the curriculum in schools and expanding access to the arts across the board. Finding a way to stop prolific ticket touts and their often illegal practices is a first step in the right direction, but it must be a springboard for change, spurring on further action to make arts and culture truly affordable and accessible for consumers.”
“Because such assets are rooted in their communities, they provide not just a physical space for gigs but other opportunities for communities too. Some community-owned music venues provide training and development for young people, teaching them about music technology, sound design and stage management, and setting them up for proper careers. We should actively support that groundbreaking model for the live music sector as a route to keep our beloved venues open. At its heart, our work to crack down on ticket touts is about fairness and protecting consumers and fans. Scams and rip-offs are becoming increasingly common and normalised. That affects not just the live music industry but everything from football to car insurance.”
“I give a big shout-out to all those behind the Brighten the Corners music festival, who have an insatiable thirst for going bigger and better every single year. Yet with 2024 set to be the worst year on record for grassroots music venue closures, I cannot help but wonder whether Suffolk’s next Ed Sheeran will be denied their chance to shine. It is high time to face up to these challenges. That is why I am proud, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, that our movement has been campaigning hard to ensure grassroots music venues have the opportunity to be owned and operated by the community. Community-owned assets can keep their profits local, reinvesting any money made into the project and its successes.”
“Although our most famous grassroots music venue, The Smokehouse, right in the heart of our town, has nurtured the next generation of local talent, it has been close to closure. During the covid-19 pandemic, the financial pressures became so overbearing that it had to be saved by £12,000 of crowdfunding from local residents and grants from the local Ipswich borough council and Arts Council England. Research from the Music Venue Trust earlier this year shows that two grassroots music venues close every week, leaving holes in the cultural fabric of the cities and towns they once brought so much joy to. Our county of Suffolk is famous for being the home of Ed Sheeran—apologies—who is a phenomenal success. We are proud of the strides we have made in Ipswich over the past few years.”
“In all seriousness, buying tickets under false pretences and selling them on at hugely inflated prices means that fans face a choice: they either stump up or they miss out. It is therefore not hyperbole to say that ticket touts are ripping the heart out of live music. Cracking down on ticket touting is important to music venues, too. Driving prices for gigs higher and higher means that genuine fans cannot access live music, and that has implications for small grassroots music venues as well as big arenas. I can proudly say that my constituency of Ipswich boasts a phenomenally impressive music scene, but if fans are consistently frozen out of live music and the arts more broadly and see them as something they can no longer afford or access, it is grassroots venues and entertainers that will suffer the most.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing such an important debate. She invited us to share the details of our first gig. Mine was when I was taken to hear Soul II Soul at the Notting Hill carnival when I was little, which was cool. In fact, on the day I was due to be born, my mum decided to see Nina Simone instead, which is also cool. Unfortunately, I have not lived up to that musical heritage, because I have been to see three out of seven members of S Club 7 and two fifths of 5ive. To be honest, that day inflation pricing was not the issue; it was whether we were going to get our money back at all—after we had seen them.”
“T8. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). Despite the previous Government’s promises to reform funding settlements, as usual they failed to deliver. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must review the current situation, reform the police funding formula and finally deliver fairer funding for local people?”
“The families who have suffered so much deserve justice, and all my constituents deserve change. Those two things are inseparable—we simply cannot have one without the other—and there is no time to waste in delivering them.”
“Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) aptly called the “slow-motion disaster” of mental health care. Secondly, there is the cruel detail of unrecorded or unaccounted deaths, which led to thousands of people falling through the gaps, left off official statistics and totted up retrospectively as if they were a mere glitch in the system—the dead dehumanised, lost and buried in spreadsheets. It is not right that, after facing allegations as serious as the NSFT has faced, it should be allowed to mark its on homework on the matter. But with a new Government comes an opportunity for a new approach. I therefore ask the Minister to meet me to discuss a pathway to justice and to change Suffolk’s mental health services. This is the crux of the debate.”
“We are almost entirely accustomed to the slew of reports that find that the trust “requires improvement” or is “inadequate”, but time does not allow me to give a detailed overview of the litany of failures that have brought us to this point. However, there are two key tenets to the scandal. First, there is the scandal of the perhaps euphemistically named unexpected or avoidable deaths. The 2022 Care Quality Commission report found that there were 155 such deaths in the two years preceding the report, and the NSFT’s own “Learning from Deaths” report admitted to 418 unexpected unnatural deaths in a four-year period. Many of those deaths were entirely avoidable suicides, some while directly in the NSFT’s care. Those numbers, even taken at face value, which is unfortunately hard to do given the trust’s record, are emblematic of what my hon.”