Ben Spencer MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that this debate is not a political ding-dong, and I really appreciate the tone that all Members, including the Minister, have taken. On evidence and facts, will he look into the impact of the national insurance contribution rises on hospice care and provision, how many hospices are running a deficit, and how many will likely go into deficit as a result of his policies?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will have to explain further what is required from those who commit to fundraising in the Sussex jungle. He is right to pay tribute to those doing great work in support of our hospice sector. Its funding model is part public and part private, which gives hospices a great benefit. As they sit outside the NHS, they have greater flexibility in how they approach care provision. Woking & Sam Beare hospice is 31% funded by public sector money. It has 2,000 staff and, as I said, delivers fantastic care and support. Much of this debate has been about the future of funding for our hospice sector. Although I am grateful to the Government for the money and support that they have put forward for hospices, sadly they have given with one hand and taken away with the other. The rise in employers’ national insurance contributions is very damaging, and hospices also need to manage increases to staffing budgets as a result of the Agenda for Change. Marie Curie has said that the national insurance component will cost it roughly £2.9 million per year. Could the Minister say what impact assessment has been done on the national insurance contribution rises for hospices, and on the Agenda for Change? How many hospices in the UK are running a deficit, and how does he expect that to change over the next year and going forward, as a consequence of the decisions made in the Budget? If there is an opportunity to reverse those decisions, does he supporting doing so?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the Minister can quickly turn this situation around for my constituents and the country, and I wish him all the best in doing so. Given the challenges of business confidence and the markets, I had hoped that he would come to the House this morning with a plan that lays out the scope of the problem and the solution to fix it. Instead, he has spoken more about the Conservative party, rather than Labour’s plan for the economy. Is that because the Chancellor is not here today? When will she come back?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Access to Public Services: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s approach to improving access through technology. However, the majority of the concerns that colleagues and I receive are from those who cannot use technology. Rather than improving access, for some, technology can act as a barrier. What is her assessment of the impact of digital exclusion in the UK? Will the digital inclusion strategy that she has announced include digital exclusion at all levels of Government?

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is important that patients have information and choice, and that they have the flexibility to move between different practices to suit their needs. My view is that the GP list system does not work. It does not make sense as it currently stands, and it limits the ability of patients to seek the care that they need in a timely manner. As he just mentioned, people get stuck in practices that are not performing or are not working for them, and they have no ability to move out of them. My right hon. Friend also mentions the role of the ICB/ICS system, which brings me to my final point. As a constituency MP, I find it incredibly frustrating that I have no direct control, power or hard influence, as opposed to soft influence, over the local ICS/ICB system. I can write letters and campaign, and I have spoken in debates in Parliament. I have led a debate on the Weybridge health centre, which is finally going to planning after the drama of multiple consultations. My only ability to direct what is happening on the ICB is through directly asking Ministers questions in Parliament, or by trying to get them to intervene. When the Health and Care Act 2022 was going through in the last Parliament, I raised with the then Minister my concerns about the accountability of our ICSs and ICBs. We have a real problem with what we MPs can do to ensure that our ICBs and ICSs are performing for people locally, because there is a disconnect in the link of accountability. I believe that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Ministers on the Front Bench absolutely want to see all our local NHS services performing at their very best. I totally believe that they are in it for the right reasons and want to see better performance, and I want to help them deliver that. But with all the enthusiasm and will in the world, are they going to take the same interest in my local area as I do? We MPs need the ability to cajole and to direct what our local NHS services are doing in order to deliver the best possible care for patients. After all, we are the locally elected representatives and, as we saw in this year’s election and will see in elections going forward, there are always 24 hours to save the NHS.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important and timely debate. I must begin by declaring my interests: I am a non-practising NHS consultant psychiatrist and my wife is an NHS doctor. Christmas and the festive period is always a taxing time for the NHS, especially for those working on call, as indeed it is for all those in the various emergency services and those outside the public sector who are on call. It is important to pay tribute to them for all their hard work over the past couple of weeks. Much of the correspondence that I have received from constituents over the past few years has concerned the difficulty of obtaining GP appointments. Interestingly, the demand for GP appointments has risen since before the pandemic, following the advent of virtual appointments and different means of contact. Patients are now finding it more difficult to see someone in a general practice, although overall performance in general practices has improved since before the pandemic. It is important that we support our GP practices as much as we can, to ensure that they deliver the high-quality care that our patients expect. Our local practices are fantastic: they are working very hard, in tricky circumstances, to deliver for patients.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the use of AI to improve productivity in the NHS, and with what he has said about general practices. I generally take a neutral, honest-broker approach when people raise concerns about general practices. Of course it is important for us to ensure that our practices are performing well, to support them, and to respond to our constituents’ concerns more broadly. However, given that the bulk of care is coming through general practice—and I was interested to hear, in recent days, about the renewed focus on patient choice, particularly in respect of secondary and tertiary care—I think that one of the challenges posed by our current general practice system relates to the absence of patient choice. Effectively, general practices, which, as the Minister will know, are private organisations, have a monopoly in terms of the patients who are in their catchment area. It is very difficult for patients to move to different practices when the ones that they are currently using are not meeting their needs: when seeking an appointment with a GP, they are stuck with their own practice, or else they must go through various mechanisms to obtain care elsewhere.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Debates such as this, about the horrors now happening in Ukraine, are always very important and very difficult to speak in. I very much appreciated listening to some of the harrowing stories, to remind myself just what the Ukrainians are experiencing, but also why all of us must push back Putin’s war machine. I am most proud of the leadership that our country has shown over the past few years in the international response to support the Ukrainians to stand up against Putin. A key part of that was bringing together the international community to multilaterally, not unilaterally, support the Ukrainians in their plight. Early in this conflict we saw the weaponisation of oil and gas prices. We saw, and continue to see, hybrid warfare, which has been going on for some time. I very much supported, at every stage, the full-fat embargo of Russian oil and gas. Indeed, this House strongly supported the sanctions, which have been an important part of our support for the Ukrainians. As tempting as this motion is—and it is very tempting when we read it—I must say that, like Members on both sides of the House, I am cautious and have some concerns and reservations about it. It is important to consider the impact on the international financial order and the rule of law. What differentiates us from Putin and the Russian state is that we do consider and debate this—we have this place where we can consider the rules-based order. Putin thinks that makes us weak, but he is wrong; it makes us strong, and it is what we stand for and what we believe in. If we are to look at seizing assets, there are two important considerations. First, this focuses on state assets, as opposed to those of individuals and companies, as there is currently no judicial process for individuals and companies who have had their assets frozen, and to go ahead with seizing those assets is a much bigger step. Members have mentioned individuals and companies as well as the state, but the focus has to be specifically on Russian state assets, for which the legal framework is stronger. Secondly, as with how we led from the beginning of the conflict, there has to be a multilateral approach. This has to be linked through the G7 and our partners in Europe. It has to be done together in unison, and we have a history of doing that. I say to the Minister that I am very proud of how we have done that. If we are to do this, we must do it multilaterally. We also need to look at these assets being used for military use, as opposed to just general economic support. My understanding is that the interest money that has now been freed up has been restricted from use for military interventions, and this also needs to be considered as part of the process. Finally, we also need to ensure that our current sanctions are effective. Just before Christmas I mentioned my concerns about the oil and gas embargo, particularly the idea that crude oil derivatives could be finding their way into the UK economy despite the embargo. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of my specific questions on that, but I hope he will look carefully at the effectiveness of the proofs of origin under the rules of origin, particularly when it comes to petrochemical derivatives such as plastics and other products that can be manufactured through the use of Russian oil and gas. We must ensure that, in our economy, our oil and gas embargo of Russia is as effective as possible before we even start looking at the next measures to take.