The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 193 contributions

Speeches by Abbott.

Every Hansard contribution by Jack Abbott this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 81100 of 193 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 5 of 10Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

But that demolishes the central argument that the hon. Gentleman is making. On the one hand, he says that we are expanding access, but on the other, he says that the panel system will not be able to expand it. If the motive of the promoter of the Bill was to expand the system to make more people eligible, the hon. Gent

healthsocial-care
88
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

I do not want to make implications about what the hon. Gentleman might be saying, but am I correct that, with the adversarial position that he is supporting, a person coming to the end of their life, who had gone through this process, would essentially have to argue their case in front of a judge?

healthsocial-care
55
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, especially on the issue of coercion. Amendments on coercion training have been agreed to. Does my hon. Friend think the court system as it stands can deal with his concern about coercion, or will the panel be more able to deal with that kind of concern?

healthsocial-care
54
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

There is a difference between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system, which is what I believe is proposed for this panel. The panel would take not an adversarial but an inquisitive position. I do not think that is a million miles away from what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is a distinct difference

healthsocial-care
78
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

We go back to the inconsistency argument. On the one hand, we are saying that we must have more psychiatrists, social workers and palliative care experts in the process. This change is now being proposed, and the hon. Gentleman is using that as a reason to say that there is bad faith here and the sponsors of the Bill j

healthsocial-care
75
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

I agree wholeheartedly. It is important to emphasise that this provision will apply only in a relatively small number of cases, but it is a very important one. It would be subject to clear guidance developed following the passage of the Bill, as with the schedules and other related items, and would be subject to the sa

healthsocial-care
333
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

In case I was not clear enough about my misgivings about the judicial stage, I will set them out again. In my view, the people making a High Court judgment probably do not have the breadth of knowledge and experience to pick up a number of the things that we have debated over the past few weeks. One cannot expect legal

healthsocial-care
1,155
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but he is entirely misrepresenting my position. I have said that there should be a balance between safeguarding and ensuring that the process works for people. I have just spoken in support of the panel stage, and I think it is important that it is robust. We are including

healthsocial-care
122
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

indicated dissent.

healthsocial-care
2
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

No.

healthsocial-care
1
12 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to several new clauses and to amendment (e) to new clause 21. There were many comments yesterday about the fact that a number of Members across the House had cited the judicial stage as an important reason why they supported the Bill. I challeng

healthsocial-care
921
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)

To follow up on the example my hon. Friend gave earlier, if—to be glib—someone said, “None of your business”, she would want the doctor to keep probing. At what point does that end? If someone genuinely does not want to have that conversation and says, “I want to end my life because I have a terminal diagnosis. I live

healthsocial-care
88
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given way a number of times, but I gently suggest that we already know the crux of the Bill and what we are debating. The “why” is that people with a terminal diagnosis, with six months to live, would like a course of action to end their lives in a pain-free way and to have the auto

healthsocial-care
259
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)

For clarity, at what point in the conversation does the hon. Member expect the question to be raised? In reference to an assessing doctor, do I take it that the question must be asked twice, at different times, by both the co-ordinating and the independent doctor?

healthsocial-care
46
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

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

healthsocial-care
112
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

If we follow that argument, does that mean that we would support the new clauses? If we are moving from that single point of reference—a High Court judge and judicial review—it is surely much safer to move to what is proposed.

healthsocial-care
41
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I will be brief, as I have already alluded to my support. I put on the record my support for amendment 93. There has not been a lot of debate on it because it is a fairly straightforward proposal. There has been a lot of discussion. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken in defence of the medical profession

healthsocial-care
533
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about what may need to happen in respect of medical intervention, but I gently point out that the amendment would not cover that. It does not spell out in any way, shape or form what a medical intervention would look like. It says that there needs to be a random dis

healthsocial-care
88
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

It is an intervention, Ms McVey. My plea to the hon. Member is to focus on exactly what the amendment states. I appreciate all the stories and examples that he wishes to make, but it is important to reflect on the words of the amendment. As I said, I am minded to support it.

healthsocial-care
54
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I am inclined to support his amendment 362 and amendment 142 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, not because of, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the scare stories or the examples that the hon. Member has been giving, but predominantly bec

healthsocial-care
98
← PreviousPage 5 of 10 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.