Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a former mental health doctor and someone who has done research on decision-making capacity, I want to talk about stigma in the brief time I have today. I have looked after many hundreds of people—perhaps thousands—who have self-harmed or attempted suicide. Of course, a desire for one’s life to end can be entirely reasonable and an understandable wish, but it is often a manifestation of a treatable mental disorder. With the right intervention, care and support, people can get better. They can look back and say, “What was that about? I’m so thankful I didn’t succeed” when they get the care and treatment they need. The Bill refuses to acknowledge that. It frames the debate—the intervention—as shortening the death process or some form of assisted dying rather than what it is, which is physician-assisted suicide. The Bill is designed to take at face value an expression of a wish to die as an absolute fact—an expression of autonomy—and not a possible manifestation of mental illness. That is its blind spot. That is its most tragic flaw, and it is from there that I believe all its problems derive. Mental disorder can be very tricky to detect. There is nothing stigmatising about mental disorder. If someone in hospital expressed a wish to die, if someone in a care home or an outpatient clinic expressed a wish to die, if someone here in the Chamber expressed a wish to die or if a loved one expressed a wish to die, the first person I would want them to see would be a psychiatrist, not an assisted dying practitioner.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is a requirement to ask someone why they want to have a physician-assisted suicide a wrecking amendment?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In his previous role, the Chancellor demonstrated that he is a man of principle who is able to advocate for change, even when politically difficult. Where the evidence shows that Labour policies are harming businesses and jobs, will he also advocate a change of course?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Towns and villages across my constituency are often besieged by utility and engineering works. Will the Prime Minister look at and personally respond to my campaign for a statutory duty to co-ordinate those works to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to raise a deeply troubling case that highlights serious concerns about the integrity of DNA testing within the Child Maintenance Service and questions surrounding the existing safeguards in place to protect families. I want to share, as was recounted to me, what happened to my constituent Ms Chelsea Millar, her fight for justice and the serious questions that it raises. Ms Millar separated from her former partner Mr Brown shortly after the birth of their son in March 2022. When she applied to the CMS for child maintenance a few months later, paternity was disputed and the CMS arranged DNA testing through Cellmark, an independent private company specialising in forensic and relationship DNA testing. Ms Millar attended an approved testing clinic. However, her former partner requested that the DNA sample be taken at Woodlawn medical centre, a location that was not on Cellmark’s approved list of collection sites. Despite that, the testing kit was sent there. Crucially, Cellmark did not verify that the centre was authorised or capable of conducting CMS DNA testing, and neither was my constituent informed of the change. The result came back stating that Mr Brown was not the father. Ms Millar knew the result was wrong; she knew Mr Brown was the dad. Through her own determination, Ms Millar persuaded Mr Brown’s mother to participate in private DNA testing. That test established that the child was her biological grandson—Mr Brown’s mother was grandma—and as Mr Brown is an only child, it confirmed that the official CMS result could not be correct. Subsequent investigations by the Department for Work and Pensions and the police confirmed what had happened. An employee of Woodlawn medical centre, Robert Patel, had conspired with Mr Brown and tampered with the DNA testing process. Both Mr Brown and Mr Patel were subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for fraud. My concerns regarding this case are not limited to individual wrongdoing; it raises fundamental questions and concerns regarding the security of the chain of evidence relating to DNA testing and the process as a whole. Why was the DNA testing kit sent to an unapproved collection site without proper checks being carried out? What assessment or oversight of the company and its practices did the CMS undertake before and after the commissioning of DNA testing? Most importantly, what lessons have been learned to ensure that no other parent or child has to endure the same ordeal? People need to have confidence in paternity testing, whether in child maintenance or other forensic uses. The chain of evidence needs to be secure. Will the Government urgently review that, and meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the measures that can be taken to strengthen oversight, accountability and safeguards within paternity testing? Families must be able to trust that decisions that affect their children are based on processes that are secure, reliable and beyond reproach.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Road Congestion · Hansard source

  More

  The A244 has always had too much traffic and too many heavy goods vehicles on it. It goes through Oxshott in my constituency, and following the roadworks on the M25 and A3, increasing numbers of cars and large vehicles are using it as a shortcut between the A3 and the M25. We need that to stop. Will the Secretary of State meet me and work with our local community to improve and reduce traffic on the A244?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Science, innovation and technology Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and its entire membership for the publication of a very interesting and timely report. Business, academia and the whole tech sector needs clarity, in some ways more than anything else. Does the Chair share my concerns, which are stated quite well in the report, that “The government has repeatedly outlined that building sovereign capability is a ‘critical priority’ for the UK but has not been clear on exactly what this means or how it might be measured”? There are lots of different definitions of sovereignty being bandied around, which mean lots of different things in different contexts. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some clarity on what exactly it means in this sector when we use the word “sovereignty”?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I have three questions about this statutory instrument. The first is a request for clarity from the Minister, because I was a bit confused by some of his comments about the caps that are being updated by this SI. On my reading of the explanatory memorandum, the reciprocal arrangements with caps of EEA operators in Norway were already below the proposed caps, in fact quite substantially so: about 50% on voice, between 33% and 66% on SMS, and between 50% on data. That demonstrates to me the success of the free market. The impact assessment says very clearly that the impact of this SI is zero, given that the market has already found a solution. Will the Minister clarify that a bit further in case I have read that wrong? Will he celebrate the impact of the free market? Will he also update the House on the work that is being done to reduce barriers to other roaming charges, particularly in jurisdictions such as Canada, the US and Mexico, which are of particular interest to many of our citizens at this moment in time? I see that the agreement was made in November 2025. Why has it taken seven months to bring this SI to us? Is that indicative of the performance of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in turning around SIs? Finally, given that the impact assessment says that this SI has no impact, can the Minister tell us the cost of drawing it up and putting it in front of us today?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for bringing forward this interesting debate, and all the Members on both sides of the House who have taken part. I recognise many of those who have participated in many debates such as this and who will, I am sure, participate in many more to come. I will start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—I wish I had attended his lecture in 2000, not least to have had the experience of being in a room where everyone disagreed with him, which must have been rather unique—for making an important point about how slowly Parliament regulates and responds to change. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a similar point about our responsiveness to this rapidly evolving sector. I also very much welcome his point about education and the challenges involved, particularly given his experience in the sector. However, more than anything, I welcome his point that nobody knows what the future outcomes will be—a point I shall come back to a bit later. I want to focus the bulk of my remarks on employment. I share the desire of the hon. Member for Poole to look at how to support and enhance employment through the AI transition, and we do need to have more such discussions. However, I am saddened that one core proposal from Labour Back Benchers is a plan on who or what we should tax now. I regret that the hon. Member’s plans for an employment levy, which he is very passionate about and has written about previously, would not work to protect jobs—protectionism never does. It would simply put a brake on the ability of organisations, large and small, to adapt to AI, and leave us behind our competitors, losing jobs across all sectors. The history of protectionism is, sadly, frequently a very tragic one. With each technological intervention and change, there are often calls for protectionist approaches, and when they come in—

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his challenge regarding a future hypothetical that has yet to be realised. I think I will be able to address some of his points, but I think the premise he is setting is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I can give some concrete proposals for protecting human jobs. As a starter for 10, rather than inventing a new tax, we could start with some old ones, and rather than inventing new regs, we could start with some newish ones. The Labour Government’s approach has been to make it as difficult as possible to employ human labour by increasing national insurance contributions from employers; making it more difficult for younger people to compete in the workplace by increasing the minimum wage; and increasing employment regulations, making it a greater gamble for businesses to take on new starters. To support jobs in the UK, we should, before looking at AI, look at the Labour Government’s policies, which are uniquely designed to make it more and more difficult to employ a person over a machine. We are right to think about the workforce implications of the adoption of AI, but the future is always unclear and uncertain; that is the challenge of working in this sector, and I am very mindful of that position of humility as I move on to the following, more specific remarks. Other technological disruptions, while displacing jobs, have ultimately led to more jobs through elasticity of demand. As costs decrease through automation, demand increases. That is the story of what happened with mass manufacturing in the automotive sector: to begin with, people were concerned that mechanised manufacturing would reduce jobs in the sector. Of course, the car sector exploded because the cost of a car went through the floor, and as a net result there were more jobs in the automotive sector. The issue was that they were different jobs; it is more of a transition than a replacement. There are signals and concerns that the current decrease in the number of youth jobs is due to AI. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it is unclear whether that is due to AI replacement, the current prevailing economic circumstances, or a mixture of the two. The data remains unclear, but I appreciate that we need to be thinking now about what possible futures could unfold. Equally, our tech sector provides growth and jobs. The UK could be the world’s fastest AI adopter, but only if it is not punished with burdensome taxes and regulations. We are already seeing a hint—just a hint—of what AI can offer, especially in the research and health sectors. Our economic future needs AI, or we are going to be left behind. Before I come to my final questions for the Minister, let me touch on AI and tech sovereignty, which is increasingly being talked about in the media and in this place as people focus on it more and more. AI and tech sovereignty, as described in this debate and in other forums, is illusory. We work and operate in global supply chains, with technology enmeshed around the world. Whether it is microchips built by TSMC in Taiwan, microchip etches created in the Netherlands, quantum tech built in the UK or frontier models, most of which are based in the States, our sectors are completely and utterly enmeshed. Rather than talking about tech and data sovereignty, we should be talking about resilience and leverage. What are the core functions and features that we want to have on domestic soil? We can have a discussion about that. What should it be necessary to have on British soil, and what are the core technologies on which we want to be elite? We want to be world leaders, and to be indispensable to the world so that it looks to us, as opposed to the other way around. We need resilience and leverage rather than to chase the illusory rainbow of tech and data sovereignty. Given my remarks about regulation and competitiveness, can the Minister rule out any part of the UK being brought into the EU AI Act? That would reduce our competitiveness with the EU. Will the Minister summarise the impact on the UK AI sector of Government taxation and employment policies? Have they been positive or negative? If they have been negative, to what extent? Can he confirm that there will be a decent statement before recess, as has been promised, on social media and the regulation of chatbots? Has he spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), about the importance of anti-protectionist policies in the UK’s AI sector?