Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  This might be the last time this Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ministerial team get the chance to face us at the Dispatch Box, so on behalf of our team I wish them well over the next few weeks as the Government go through their hard reset. Has the Secretary of State spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and told him of the work under way to deliver the essential safeguards to restrict social media for under-16s following the successful campaign by parents, families and the Conservative Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition? Or is it that, as when we pull the plug on a computer, any unsaved progress will be lost?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This statutory instrument revokes an obsolete SI, and we of course support clearing up and removing obsolete instruments. I wish the Government could do more of that in terms of regulation, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a list of the SIs that he plans to revoke, amend or remove over the course of the next year. Many people receive internet coverage through 4G and 3G. He will no doubt be aware that there have recently been quite a few cancellations under Project Gigabit. Can he tell us how many homes will now no longer receive gigabit broadband connections that were expecting to this year?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The cancelled gigabit availability.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for what he is doing in what I am sure is a challenging and uncertain time. With regard to meeting NATO spending commitments, he has referred to future spending reviews on many occasions. Is this defence investment plan not a bit like the Government: cast adrift and waiting for someone else in the future to make the hard decisions?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the knowledge and experience he brings to the background of that particular case. I entirely agree that it is incumbent on all parties across the House to strengthen our national security and to be clear-eyed about the threat of hostile state actors. I will continue to develop that point in my wind-up speech. The evidence is clear that we face an increasing threat from foreign state actors. We need to take action to recognise those risks and to prevent such attacks. Cyber-security should be at the forefront of our defences, and for that reason, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have focused again on amending the Bill, particularly with new clauses 14 and 15. We table them in the hope that the Government will not squander another opportunity to act in this Bill. New clause 14 would require the Government to directly identify the threats we face, ending the prevarication we have seen in recent months by obliging the Secretary of State to establish and maintain by regulation a list of foreign powers presenting a significant cyber-security risk to the UK. The amendment would strengthen the link between intelligence agencies and policy enforcement, ensuring that decisions by the Secretary of State to deploy special national security direction powers are based on GCHQ’s verified risk assessments regarding hostile states and state-affiliated groups. It is not about reacting after an attack occurs, but creating a proactive framework to evaluate and mitigate threats, built directly into UK supply chains. That would ensure that the UK is better prepared to deal with cyber-threats and attacks from hostile state actors. With the risks continuing to grow, these decisions cannot remain at the political whim of a Government who are reluctant to act. Let us talk about the dragon in the room. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre confirmed that China state-affiliated actors were responsible for cyber-attacks on the UK’s Electoral Commission and Parliament in 2021 and 2022, yet this Government continue to refuse to recognise China as a threat to the UK. New clause 14 would compel the Government to recognise formally what is readily apparent to those on these Benches, to our security services and to the many Members across both Houses who have expressed urgent concern about the security risks that China and other foreign state actors pose to the United Kingdom. The new clause would force the Government to acknowledge that China is a threat. In view of this established and growing threat, our new clause 15 would compel the Secretary of State to review state-sponsored cyber-threats to the UK’s infrastructure, including the cyber-security risk to surrounding critical networks in the vicinity of the super-embassy site in the City of London. As I said in Committee, there is simply no point in granting the Secretary of State powers to issue directions on the basis of national security if the Government are not willing to be clear-eyed about the most critical national and cyber-security threats to this nation. The new clause also strikes an important balance between ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and recognising and protecting the sensitive nature of some of the material that may be unearthed, by making provision for such information to be sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I am pleased that, having resisted calls to address this risk during previous stages of the Bill’s progress, the Government have now taken some action to address risks from foreign state actors. The publication last week of their National Security (State Threats) Bill comes in response to a sharp spike in state-backed intelligence operations, sabotage and proxy violence. Their own explanatory notes to that Bill state: “Threats to the UK from foreign states are persistent and take many forms, including espionage, foreign interference in the UK’s political system, sabotage, disinformation, cyber operations, and even assassinations. Collectively these are referred to by the Government as state threats.” However, the Bill itself does not once mention cyber-security, and contains no provision requiring assessment of the risks posed. It does not apply to states themselves, and therefore can only be complemented and strengthened by new clauses 14 and 15, which no responsible Government or Member of the House could vote against. Amendment 3, which would insert a provision headed “Exemption from disclosure: right to a fair trial”, was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). As a Member of Parliament whose constituency includes Runnymede, I am proud both to call him a friend and to work with him on, in particular, his fight for the rule of law and fair trials. The amendment would prevent the sharing of information with overseas authorities for the purpose of prosecuting crimes not committed in the UK, if the Secretary of State determined that the receiving country was one in which the right to a fair trial could not be guaranteed. It would address genuine human rights concerns, and would close a loophole in the Bill that currently fails to anticipate politically motivated requests from authoritarian states. It would help to block hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran from probing our systems to detect firmware back doors or vulnerabilities within, for instance, the UK’s utility networks, healthcare systems and data centres. It would also create a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Parliament justifying decisions on which foreign jurisdictions are trusted or barred from intelligence sharing. That alone would be invaluable, and would end the many fruitless hours of questions and debate in the Chamber initiated by Conservative Members seeking a clear answer from the Government on whether they see countries such as China as a threat—per my earlier remarks. I am therefore pleased, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to support my right hon. Friend’s amendment. Let me also pay tribute to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). I thank her for her comments, which were echoed by others, about the risk from the internet of things and cellular modules. That is an important area, and we need to get it right. I will conclude by addressing the amendments tabled by our Liberal Democrat colleagues regarding digital sovereignty and the impact that this approach could have on the UK. New clause 13 is the clearest demonstration to date that the Liberal Democrats do not understand the tech sector or global supply chains. Of course it is right to support British business, but it is not feasible or possible to achieve full sovereignty in a global market or supply chain. Rather, we should prioritise capacities and capabilities, and ensure that the UK has an indispensable role in global supply chains.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I would also like to make some remarks in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox. I never met Jo Cox. I never knew Jo Cox, and I am very sad that I did not, because having seen the impact she has had on our politics, on this place and on the people who knew her, she was clearly an incredible person. I do not think anyone can disagree with what she stood for, and in particular, that we have more in common in our politics. Our politics is worse off without her. Yet again, we return to this Government’s vacant vacillation regarding our national security. I urge the Minister again to take this opportunity to strengthen UK cyber-security from the threat posed by foreign state actors. Protecting the UK and its citizens is the primary responsibility of Government, but still, in the face of clear evidence of increasing threats, this Government fail to act. The risk of physical threats and the need to invest in defence are clear to all, yet the Government prioritise increasing welfare spending over the safety and security of armed forces personnel and our country. The situation is so serious that the Defence Secretary had to resign, as he could not defend the inaction of this Government or the risks they are taking. While the dangers presented to our cyber-security may be less visible, they are no less real. Hostile state actors are working every single hour of every single day to undermine our democracy and our security. These are risks that every Member across this House will be aware of. It is chilling to know that when Iran shut down its internet access, social media accounts purporting to be pro-independence Scottish people stopped tweeting. Expert analysis has estimated that thousands of similar accounts could originate in Iran and that as much as 26% of such accounts could be fake. Social media is now a weapon. We know that hostile state actors have sought to attack and undermine Parliament. Just last week we were told that spyware had been discovered in Government buildings linked to recent high-profile decisions regarding China’s controversial mega-embassy project in London.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Member to her new clause 13, particularly subsection 3(c), which makes it very clear that companies would need to deviate from “foreign technologies”, which would be quite a burden. We need to back Britain in key sectors, from quantum and photonics to chip design and innovation. In so many areas, we lead the world. We should not try to restrict the influence and access of global markets. We must engage not in protectionism, but in leverage, to back Britain and position ourselves so that we are indispensable in the modern global tech sector and supply chains.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want any part of the UK to be subject to the awful AI Act that has been passed by the European Union. Northern Ireland, and particularly Belfast, is a technological powerhouse of which we should be very proud. We need to ensure that it continues to go from strength to strength as part of our fantastic Union. We on the Conservative Benches will not back new clause 13, because we understand how markets and global supply chains work. We believe in Britain.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no taxpayer money will be used to bail out Thames Water or its shareholders?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had— [ Interruption. ] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced. New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens. New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport. That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name. My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics. I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency. A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies. New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time. New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.

• 3 Jun 2026 · South East Water: Disruption of Supply · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister is looking into the situation with South East Water, can I also feed back what happened last week, when parts of Weybridge had restrictions on water supply? Although we are supplied by Affinity Water, I think the problem is broader than just our area. Will she urgently review the resilience and availability of water supply, and in particular the impact that new house building will have on supply over the coming years?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Why does the Secretary of State think that Tony Blair is so critical of his policies?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. Given the number of hon. Members here, we could have had a three-hour debate on his wide-ranging speech. I will be brief so colleagues can get in. In Runnymede and Weybridge, we have flooding incidents almost every year. Thankfully, they are often not huge, but sometimes they very much are. The local resilience forum exists to deal with the really big emergencies, but we often have what I call sub-acute flooding events—where there is enough flooding to cause risk to properties and people, but not enough to trigger an LRF major response. The problem for people facing flooding incidents is that Floodline operates as a telephone directory. The roads are dealt with by the county council. The Environment Agency deals with the direct response. The fire service deals with emergency rescue. The local authorities, Runnymede borough council or Elmbridge borough council, deal with different responses. We have Affinity Water, which is for direct freshwater coming to people’s homes, and we have Thames Water, which deals with the drainage. Each is responsible for a different bit. We have the county council, which leads on overall flood preparedness. It is too disjointed. What we need locally, and also nationally, are flood control centres that can bring all these different organisations together to co-ordinate a flood response. A few years ago, during the last big flood that we had while I have been an MP, my team and I ended up dealing with a lot of the flood response and communicating directly with people. I am very happy to do that, but we need a flood control centre to be able to do so. I think that would help our national resilience. MPs, broadly speaking, have a role in being embedded in our communities. We usually know what is happening at all different levels and we have key contacts on the ground. On that basis, for the local resilience response, does the Minister agree that MPs should have direct access to local resilience forum chairs, both before and during an emergency event?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Could he explain what the pathway of local accountability is for ICBs?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that we are having this important debate on accountability. Is there not a danger that the centralisation of this direction power in the Secretary of State effectively signals to MPs, “Don’t engage with ICBs, as they will not have accountability to local MPs. If you want changes to happen, go through the Secretary of State rather than engaging locally, because that is where the power is going to lie”?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I did not agree with everything in his speech, but I know of his passion for NHS services and I am grateful for the work that he did as a Minister, particularly in helping me to advocate for my constituents, which I will come to in the main part of my speech. I should start with the standard declarations: I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is a current NHS doctor. There is a lot of good and very reasonable stuff in this Bill. I very much support the abolition of NHS England and I am glad that is being taken forward. The single care record makes complete sense. It is pretty crazy that we do not already have a national system in place. I think there will be some speed bumps in terms of administration, and the question I have is this: how is it going to encode sex data? What data is the record going to use as sex data, given the problems and the discussion that we had just before this debate? For me, the problem is about accountability. I have a local integrated care board. I also have NHS trusts, one of which is Surrey and Borders, which has been failing to deliver rapid, timely autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments for children. Frankly, that failure to provide a speedy assessment for ASD or ADHD locally is a disgrace. I have been putting pressure on my local trust to try to change that. My constituents expect me to do that. Some of my constituents expect me, as an MP, to be able to click my fingers to make this happen, but of course I cannot do that because this is the NHS trust, the chief executive and the ICB. I raised this issue in Parliament with the then Secretary of State, asking him to investigate my local mental health trust and look at the failings, and I am grateful that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, responded to me and wrote to my ICB. The response I got was that this was within the ICB’s framework, and that what ICBs do is essentially up to them. My ability to go about changing this is therefore very limited. I get the point about clause 11 and the Secretary of State taking a few more powers to direct ICBs, but that is a very blunt tool. In reality, it will not be accountability. I cannot quite believe that it will work in such a way that, if I raise something in Parliament, a directive will force my ICB to deliver better for my patients. I cannot quite see that that will happen in reality—or perhaps I am wrong and it will. In that case, Parliament will essentially become a forum for MPs—all of whose constituents will expect them to be able to give directives to our NHS trusts and ICBs—to raise these issues so that the Secretary of State can take forward a directive. It would be far better if ICBs were directly accountable to local politicians. I heard the response that the plan is for ICBs to be accountable to mayors, but we do not have a mayor in Surrey and, even though many of us have been calling for a mayor, there is no timescale for getting one. ICBs need to be directly accountable to locally elected representatives in some way, shape or form, and the logical group is Members of Parliament, because that is what the public believe and expect. I hope that, as the Bill goes through, we will investigate the local accountability of ICBs in the NHS and that perception. One of the biggest dangers is the sense that we, as MPs, can deliver direct changes in day-to-day clinical commissioning, from which, of course, we have a degree of distance. I reiterate that, at the moment, the public perspective and public belief is that that is what we are empowered to do. We therefore have to be empowered to do that, or we have to have mechanisms to make it clear to people that local NHS care is not in the direct control of myself or anyone else here, apart from Ministers on the Front Bench. Patient groups are an important mechanism, but they are also important in terms of consultation. I worry about what will happen when ICBs consult on plans. What is the number? What is the survey? What is the metric? Who is appointing the ICB chair? Who is appointing the NHS foundation trust chair? Who is appointing the members of all these quangos? Where do democratically elected representatives sit in these appointment decisions? Given the time limit, I will finish on this point. Accountability is critical in getting this right. Care models need accountability. I have raised this matter in Parliament for many years now. I hope that we can use the Bill as an opportunity to give our constituents the accountability they need and deserve in the delivery of local health care.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. What is the Minister’s assessment of the extra investment in defence and the extra kit that Ukraine will need as a consequence of our handing money to Putin through the relaxation of oil and gas sanctions?

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks. My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective. Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening. But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions? To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act. Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act. A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate. Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.

• 21 May 2026 · Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  It is really interesting hearing about these rural-urban splits. My constituency is very much on the urban fringe, yet we are really struggling. We have been trying to get branches in Chertsey and Addlestone, and we had one in Cobham that recently closed down. This sounds like an issue that affects people everywhere, irrespective of rurality, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking forward this debate.

• 14 May 2026 · Heathrow Airport: Third Runway · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?