Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reflect for a moment on the title of the Bill. It could easily have been called something a bit more prosaic, such as the Revocation of Citizenship Bill or the Withdrawal of Citizenship Bill, but the notion of deprivation is far more evocative. When we talk about deprivation, it is often in the sense of going without something that is fundamental to our existence, such as food, shelter, water or liberty—the very things that we rely on for life itself. I believe that “deprivation” in this context is flawed terminology, as it seems to equate citizenship with an essential right. I apologise if I am damaging his future career by saying so, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). Citizenship is not a right; it is a privilege. To those who receive that privilege, through our immigration system or otherwise, we must be clear that it comes with duties and responsibilities. We welcome those who come to the United Kingdom lawfully, ready to participate in the freedoms that we offer and equally ready to take on the obligations that go hand in hand with them. But when an individual who has had the privilege of citizenship bestowed on them uses it to threaten our national security, that privilege should rightly be revoked until the Secretary of State has exhausted all avenues of appeal in regard to his or her decision. Citizenship of our country is to be prized, not abused—and not reduced to some sort of transactional process or tick-box citizenship test. The “Life in the UK” test is well worth a look, for those who have not seen the poverty of knowledge and scrutiny that it requires. We should not be defending the importance of citizenship only at the point at which a person has it removed. Everyone, whether they are a citizen through birth or through our immigration system, should receive an education in how precious the covenant between country and individual is to promote understanding and appreciation of our value system and the fundamental principles that underpin it: tolerance and respect, the right to equality before the law, the duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom—or, as an absolute minimum, a deep and abiding respect and commitment to the conventions and values that make up the British way of life—and, of course, the right to freedom of enterprise and aspiration. It is important not only to create wealth and opportunity, but to look at how our talents can be harnessed by making a contribution within our families and communities, whether that is through performing care obligations for young children and moulding them as the citizens of the future, caring for elderly or dependent family members, or leading local charities or community or faith groups. Those values, and the rights and duties through which they are lived out, form part of our social contract—the ties that bind us as communities, societies and nations. They have supported our past flourishing and, if re-embraced, will also secure our renewal. Those who reject these values and seek to undermine and destroy them should not be citizens of our country. Although I agree with the measure contained in the Bill, my challenge to the Government is to ensure that respect for our national values and the rights and duties that underpin them is also at the heart of their forthcoming reform of our immigration system.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is often said that Parliament is the conscience of the nation, but I believe that it is also its safeguard. There are people who will benefit from physician-assisted suicide, as implemented in this Bill, but there are also people who will be harmed: those with mental illness, those in care homes, those who feel a burden, those who are made to feel a burden, and those who are abused. The Bill’s safeguards are inadequate. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Pathologists, and countless doctors, professionals and charities, have all been ignored in pursuit of absolutist principle above understanding. It is a facile interpretation of autonomy to give it no bounds or to ignore its prerequisites. We must hear the concerns and act accordingly today, for who are we if not the champions of the vulnerable and the voice of the voiceless? The question before us today is this: do we believe that this harm to the vulnerable is worth it? I say it is not. I say we vote down this Bill.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It feels like we are going from “Groundhog Day” to “Lost in Translation” because the Government clearly are not getting the message. Today I will try something different and tell the House a story—the story of this debate: A story was read in the deep dark wood, AI saw the book, and the book looked good. “Where are you heading to, original tome? Come here with me, and I’ll give you a home.” “That’s awfully sweet of you, but no, I’m meeting my author, and they say where I go. Now I like you, and I don’t want to cause strife But they made me with love and words shaped by life. So if we’re to partner, please do ask them first, To not would be naughty,” he said with lips pursed. Perhaps I owe Julia Donaldson an apology, while also thanking her for the national treasure that is “The Gruffalo”—I look forward to the third book in the series. We did not use AI, which was useless, to draft it, just the skills of one of my team members Jacqui Gracey—human skill, talent and transparency over sources and work. Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavours. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the enduring nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and to avoid committing to a timescale and to legislating on transparency. This week, it is a new parliamentary working group. Last week, it was reviews. Next week, it may even be a citizens’ assembly, but the creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of Opposition parties, and indeed some Members on his own Benches, are not buying it. They are not buying it because the Government have lost the confidence of their stakeholders that they would bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content—AI companies need to buy it. It is this loss of confidence in the Government’s will to take decisive action that means that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of the creative industries.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have been very clear on this, and it is important in such a complex area to look at the detail and nuance of the challenges around— (Interruption.) Well, it is very easy to create a new clause where we click our fingers and say, “Let’s make this more illegal; let’s bring in x, y or z restriction.” As a responsible Opposition, we are looking at the detail and complexities around implementing something like this. [Interruption.] I have been asked a few questions and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) might want to listen to the rationale of our approach. One question is how to define social media. Direct messaging services such as WhatsApp and platforms such as YouTube fall in the scope of social media. There are obviously social media platforms that I think all of us are particularly concerned about, including Snapchat and TikTok, but by changing the age of digital consent we do not want to end up capturing lower-risk social media platforms that we recognise are clearly necessary or beneficial, such as education technology or health technology platforms. And that is before we start looking at whether age verification can work, particularly in the 13-to-16 age group.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I think that was wishful thinking by the Minister in this debate. Our new clause says that we need to look at the desirability of raising the digital age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 in terms of its impact particularly on issues such as the social and educational development of children, but also the viability of doing so in terms of the fallout and the shaking out of the Online Safety Act and with regard to age verification services. Should there then be no evidence to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, we would then raise the digital age of consent to 13 to 16. It might be the case that, over the next six months, the shaking out of the Online Safety Act demonstrates that this intervention is not necessary. Perhaps concerns around particular high-risk social media platforms will change as technology evolves. We are saying that the Government should do the work with a view to raising the age in 18 months unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. [Interruption.] I have made this crystal clear, and if the Minister would choose to look at the new clause, rather than chuckling away in the corner, he might see the strategy we are proposing.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and for all the work that she and colleagues on both sides of the House are doing in this area. I hope that the findings of the Sullivan report are implemented as soon as possible, and part of that implementation would be made possible if Members across the House supported our new clause. For the digital verification services to be brought in, it is important that the data used to inform them is accurate and correct. Digital verification could be used to access single-sex services, so it needs to be correct, and if sex and gender data are conflated, as we know they are in many datasets, a failure to act will bring in self-ID by the back door. To be clear, that has never been the legal position in the UK, and it would conflict with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Our new clause 21 is simple and straightforward. It is about the accurate collection and use of sex data, and rules to ensure that data is of the right standard when used in digital verification services so that single-sex services are not undermined. New clause 19 is on the Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR. What can or should children be permitted to consent to when using or signing up to online platforms and social media? How do we ensure children are protected, and how do we prevent harms from the use of inappropriate social media itself, separate from the content provided? How do we help our children in a world where social media can import the school, the playground, the changing room, the influencer, the stranger, the groomer, the radical and the hostile state actor all into the family home? Our children are the first generation growing up in the digital world, and they are exposed to information and weaponised algorithms on a scale that simply did not exist for their parents. In government, we took measures to improve protections and regulate harmful content online, and I am delighted to see those measures now coming into force. However, there is increasing evidence that exposure to inappropriate social media platforms is causing harm, and children as young as 13 may not be able to regulate and process this exposure to such sites in a safe and proportionate way. I am sure every Member across the House will have been contacted by parents concerned about the impact of social media on their children, and we recognise that this is a challenging area to regulate. How do we define and target risky and inappropriate social media platforms, and ensure that education and health tech—or, indeed, closed direct messaging services—do not fall within scope? How effective are our provisions already, and can age verification be made to work for under-16s? What ids are available to use? What will the impact of the Online Safety Act 2023 be now that it is coming into force? What are the lessons from its implementation, and where does it need strengthening? Finally, how do we support parents and teachers in educating and guiding children so they are prepared to enter the digital world at whatever age they choose and are able to do so? The Government must take action to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place for our children, not through outright bans or blanket restrictions but with an evidence-based approach that takes into account the recent legal changes and need for effective enforcement, including age verification for under-16s. Too often in this place we focus on making more things illegal rather than on the reasons for lack of enforcement in the first place. There is no point in immediate restrictions if they cannot be implemented.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to that a little later in my speech. Perhaps Government Members will have the chance to express their view on this matter on Report of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in a couple of weeks’ time. Turning back to the research, a longitudinal study in the US of more than 6,500 children aged between 12 and 15, adjusted for baseline mental health status, found that adolescents who spent more than three hours a day on social media faced double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety. These findings have been brought into sharp focus by recent tragic cases of children taking their own lives after being the subject of online bullying or encountering harmful material online. Clearly, that weighs on all of us as legislators. In government and now in opposition, the Conservatives have pursued measures to make the online world a safer place for children and young people. I am proud that the previous Government passed the Online Safety Act, among other measures, to make the online world safer. The Act requires platforms to take measures to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content, particularly relating to pornography, suicide and self-harm, serious violence and bullying. The Act further requires platforms to remove illegal content quickly and prevent it from appearing in the first place, and to use and enforce age-checking measures on platforms where content harmful to children is published through the adoption of highly effective age assurance technologies. In January, Ofcom published industry guidance on how it expects age assurance to be put into effect, including deadlines for platforms to conduct risk assessments and put certain safety measures in place. We can expect to see further developments in this area as the protections envisaged by the OSA are rolled out. However, parents, including many in my constituency, are rightly concerned about the addictive nature of smartphones themselves and the impact on attention span and social development. According to polling by Parentkind in 2024, 83% of parents felt that smartphones are harmful to children and young people, while research carried out by Policy Exchange across more than 200 schools at the end of 2023 found that schools with strict mobile phone bans achieved, on average, better Progress 8 scores and better GCSE grades, despite the fact that the schools with highly effective bans had a higher proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than the schools with less restrictive policies. In February, the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to require all schools in England to ban the use of mobile telephones during the school day. That, however, was rejected by the Government. I wonder how Labour Members feel about that. Should the Government decide to do so, perhaps further to the chief medical officers’ review, Opposition Members will work constructively with them to seek practical and effective solutions that enable children to continue to benefit from the opportunities offered online, while protecting them from those harmful effects.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to resist the temptation to be drawn into a discussion about research methodology in this area, although I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am very tempted to talk about the importance of case series data and qualitative data in terms of what people are telling us and what we are seeing ourselves, compared with cross-sectional or longitudinal studies or cluster studies looking at the impact of different schools. What I will say is that the stories of what children are being exposed to that we have heard in this debate and that we have all heard from our constituents are horrific—I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Clearly, we need to protect children from that. At the heart of the Bill is the desire to drive forward our scientific understanding of the effects of smartphone and social media use on children’s mental health, learning and social development. I hope we hear a commitment from the Minister that the Government will conduct a detailed review in this complex area where so much is at stake, but I would also expand it further. Any analysis must take a clear-eyed approach to both the advantages and disadvantages offered by technological developments such as smartphones and internet access, looking at both the benefits to young people of increased connectivity and access to information, and even apps that help to manage health conditions such as diabetes at school and away from home, which will transform the lives of children and young people, and the increasing body of research that demonstrates the damaging effects of excessive smartphone and social media use on children and adolescents.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must declare that I, like many parents in Surrey, have chosen independent education for my children. A freedom of information request earlier this week regarding empty school places in Surrey showed that in the ’25-26 academic year, there are zero spare places in year 9, zero in year 10 and zero in year 11. The Minister will know that in independent schools, many children in those years take international GCSEs and baccalaureates. What is his message to those children, who have no place and will have their exam training disrupted because of his spiteful policy?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is difficult not to take this vindictive policy of taxing education personally. That is not just because, like many parents in Surrey, we as a family have chosen independent education for our children, or because as a Conservative I support all our schools and I want all our children to have the best start in life; it is because lots of different data points show that the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency will be one of the most heavily punished areas as a result of this policy. It is interesting to hear the Minister talk about the estimated numbers of children who will move out of the independent sector and into the state sector. I speak to the many independent schools in my constituency pretty much all year round. They have met me, and they tell me that they are desperately concerned about this policy. They have estimated that about 5% to 10% of children will need to move out. That is probably 500 to 1,000 children in my constituency, many of whom have already been disrupted by covid. Many of them are studying for their exams, have friendships groups that will be disrupted, and will potentially be moving to schools that will be unable to provide the same courses or exam specifications that they are currently receiving. I hear from state schools that already face lots of pressure on places. As the Minister will have heard in my earlier intervention about admissions and the empty spaces that we have in years nine to 11, and the intake for the next academic year there is no space—we have lots of pressures. This policy will cause long-lasting damage to many children. I hope it will not, but in reality it will. It is clear, given the numbers and the full-throated support on the Government Benches, that this policy is going ahead and we will not be able to stop it. But will the Government, at very least, support our new clause 8? If they are so proud of this policy, which they clearly are, and so happy to defend what they see as the limited impact on young people, why are they afraid of a proper analysis? I would ask them please to think again, but I would be at risk of misleading the House, because clearly they never thought in the first place.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. I am sure that ensuring that every child has access to a great education is a priority for all across the House, and I welcomed the announcement on extra funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities in the Budget. In the Chancellor’s speech, she announced a £2.3 billion increase in core spending and £1 billion for SEN. However, the Budget document states that those sums are both from the same pot, in which case that spending was announced twice. Which is correct?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is with sadness that I rise to speak in this debate on the Budget of broken promises. During the election campaign, I heard from many constituents about how they felt regarding their disillusionment with our political system. They feel that Westminster seems to talk only about itself, does not represent them and at times treats them like fools. This Budget damages our democracy in the contempt with which it treats our voters. For the past few months, my constituents have been hearing from the Government that everything is going to be awful and this is going to be a punishment Budget, and they have been awaiting it with trepidation. They have heard that when the Labour party came into power, it discovered things it was not expecting, so it had to announce winter fuel payment cuts—despite the fact that it had been talking about doing so in this place for some time. Labour has said that it has to make difficult decisions but that it will stick to all its promises, but—hey!—it turns out that it can pull out various loopholes that it had carefully weaved into its manifesto. That is one of the reasons why over the past few weeks we have seen this incredible debate about what a “working person” is, which so far has been pure and utter sophistry. It appears that that is what so much of this Budget debate turns on, so what is a working person? Certainly, I would say I am a working person; people here are working people, for the most part. The majority of my constituents are working people, or had been until they started claiming a pension, and that needs to be respected. Since the Chancellor said that there would be no tax rises on working people, this question has led to a great degree of confusion as we go through the Budget. Is a business owner, or someone who works as a tradesman, not a working person? Ironically, Labour says it wants to fix the foundations of the country, but I wonder where it is going to get the tradespeople to do so. How about people who save for their future? Are they not working people? How about our pensioners? Have they not been working people? How about people who use the bus? Are they not working people? Thankfully, today I got an email from the TUC, which helped clarify who working people are. It pointed out that the TUC are the ones who represent working people. I think our constituents all know that unless they are a trade union member or someone who is dependent on the state, the Labour party does not think they are a working person, and it is coming for them. [ Interruption. ] Well, look at the tax rises. When Government Members start digesting the Budget—when they look at the impact of an extremely low growth rate over the next few years, the impact on farmers, who will struggle to pass on their farms, and the impact on small businesses, which we depend on for growth, investment and prosperity —they will regret what has been said today. I was sad that the south-east and Surrey were not really mentioned. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members laugh, but they would do well to consider that Surrey is the biggest net contributor to the Treasury outside London. The Chancellor would do well to listen to Surrey MPs about the investment that we need in local infrastructure so that we can continue to provide money to the economy for the ambitions of us all. In my constituency, that means confirmation of support for the Weybridge health centre rebuild, fixing our level crossings and motorways, and rebuilding the Magna Carta school. The Government had an opportunity with this Budget, and they have missed it. They have chosen duplicity over delivery, politics over pragmatism and sophistry over service.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Families and schools in my constituency are deeply concerned about this policy. They have contacted me to underline the pressure that it will put on them. Many have already started applying for state school places. Our independent schools reckon that about 5% to 10% of their students will move into the state sector. As we have heard, the measure will have a disproportionate impact on kids with SEND. In my constituency, roughly 8,000 children are educated in the independent sector. That means a lot of pressure on local state schools. A lot of kids who have their special educational needs met by independent schools are now applying for EHCPs, which means extra pressure on assessments and provision. I support all my schools; I am aspirational for all the children in my constituency. This policy, if enacted—as I expect it will be—will cause great harm. I would like the Minister to be able to quote back data, analyses and stats to me, and to say, “Ben, you’re wrong. Don’t worry your silly little head—it’s all going to be fine, and here is the data to back it up.” But he cannot; the data is not there because the Government have not done the analysis. This debate has, sadly, been driven by ideology. About one in five children are educated at independent schools in my patch. I must declare that I have chosen independent education for my children. We will really suffer from this policy. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), is a good man. I know that Members across the House, especially new Members who are finding their feet in this place, are starting to think about policies and decisions going forward. I say to them, as I said to the Minister: “If you cannot see the data and analysis for this policy, please ask why.” Please ask for it.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, schools in both the independent and state sectors are concerned about the policy and the sudden movement of children, in the middle of the year, into the state sector, which will struggle to find them places. Those children may be studying for exams and have already experienced covid disruption, and the state schools that they move to might not have the right courses. I plead with the Minister to look at the data and do the analysis to see if the policy will make money or lose it, and to consider the impact on children. I go back to the brutal, bitter words of the consultation document that went out this summer: “The government understands that moving schools can be challenging.” If I were a child going through my GCSEs or A-levels, and was forced to move into the state sector because of this policy—the analysis of which I cannot see, because the Government have not done it or will not publish it—and I read those words, I would say, “Please delay this policy. Think again. Look at it, and try to mitigate the impact on children with special educational needs, on armed forces families, and of disruption during the school year. Please, if you are not going to stop it, at least delay it and do the working out.”

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Dame Caroline, to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I am so pleased to speak in it. I support all our schools and I am proud to have a range of independent schools in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. I declare an interest: my children, like one in five children in my constituency, go to an independent school. I want to take the opportunity that we have today with a Treasury Minister responding to the debate, because Treasury Ministers are all over numbers and impacts. I am pleased to see that it would seem that, following the election, the Treasury has looked at Labour’s manifesto commitments and actually thought about them, to the extent that we are starting to get various leaks and stories that it will abandon them. I hope that the Treasury will do the same thing with this awful policy. I know that a Treasury Minister will not make a decision without an impact assessment and I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will express his concerns about the absence of an impact assessment for this policy. However, while he is considering what the impact of the change—I hope he comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us the numbers around it—let me share some information from my constituency, where about 7,500 to 8,000 children attend independent schools. My schools tell me that about 5% to 10% of these pupils will move because of the imposition of a tax on education. That means there will be far more pressure on our local state school system and there will also be disruption for those children. It also means that the 10% to 15% of children with special educational needs who do not have EHCPs will start seeking them, which will mean more cost for the taxpayer and more transfers between schools, which would be a backwards policy. Most egregiously of all, the Government are going to do that halfway through the educational year, with no consideration for our constituents’ GCSE, A-level and baccalaureate exam results. Will the Minister think again and persuade the Secretary of State for Education to abandon this ridiculous policy?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  Bearing in mind that around 15% of children in independent schools have special educational needs and only around 5% have an EHCP, given the move back into the state sector that this policy will cause and given the hon. Gentleman’s experience and personal concern about EHCPs, will he be voting against the policy?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Medicines · Hansard source

  More

  It is not often that one speaks in this place on changes to the law that will have the direct result of saving lives, but once the draft regulations pass, as I hope they will this evening, we expect them to save many peoples’ lives. Today is a very special occasion. I do not say this to disparage people who work in the public health industry, but at its core, public health is not about flash or pizazz; it is about incremental changes that make a real difference to people’s lives, and have an ongoing, cumulative effect. Naloxone reverses the effects of opiate intoxication or overdose. It stops people from dying of accidental or deliberate overdoses of heroin and other opiate drugs, and opiate medications. It is quite literally a life-saving medication. Accordingly, it is one of the World Health Organisation’s essential medications. Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day, so I am pleased that we are supporting and debating a motion to expand access to and administration of a vital antidote to opiate poisoning. Suicide is the biggest cause of death in men under the age of 50. The stats vary, but while I was looking for the best and most recent data, I read that around three quarters of suicides each year are by men, and that suicide is the biggest killer of under-35s, impacting people from all walks of life. Many people are affected by such deaths. On World Suicide Prevention Day, we remember all those affected by suicide, and the work that we need to do to reduce suicides through public health measures and mental health service provision and treatment. The use of highly addictive, lethal opiates, perhaps in combination with other substances, is often responsible for death as a consequence of drug misuse. In 2022, opioids were involved in 73% of drug misuse deaths in England, and 82% in Scotland. The last Government worked very hard to make progress on reversing the upward trend in drug poisoning deaths. Our 10-year, cross-departmental drugs strategy, published in 2022, aimed to prevent nearly 1,000 deaths in England by 2025. The naloxone roll-out has been highly effective in reducing drug misuse deaths by treating the effects of opiate overdoses. There have been several regulatory changes that have expanded access in the last decade. Under the last Government, the Human Medicines Regulations were approved in 2012 to regulate the supply and use of drugs in the UK. That was followed by further amendments in 2015 and 2019, which focused on expanding access to naloxone for emergency use. The last Government then called on Dame Carol Black to lead an independent review of drugs policy. I thank Dame Carol for her work in this space, and indeed everyone working in this area, and those who contributed to our consultation earlier this year. One of Dame Carol’s key recommendations was that more individuals supporting drug users be able to access and give out naloxone. I am pleased that she welcomed the proposals to expand access to naloxone earlier this year. When we launched a consultation seeking views on improving naloxone access through named services and professionals, as required by the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, there was strong support. There were over 300 responses, of which a third were from organisations and over 200 from individuals and professionals. More than 80% were supportive of improving access through named services and professionals, and of introducing registration with a naloxone supply co-ordinator. I am pleased that Ministers have followed the direction of the previous Government in legislating to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services, as they want and need it. That will build on work across the UK to reduce the scourge of drug-related deaths caused by opioids. On this legislation, the Government will have the support of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I encourage all colleagues from across the House to give it their backing. Of course, I have a question for the Minister about training, which is critical. During my psychiatric training at medical school, a key thing instilled into my head about the use of naloxone is that it is a wonderful drug for the first 30 minutes, but then it starts to wear off. It has a short half-life—the time that it takes to leave the body—and then the effects of opiate overdose can start to reoccur, especially when we are talking about long-acting opiates, so although it fixes one problem, another problem is coming down the track. The patient must have adequate treatment quickly so that they do not suffer after effects when naloxone wears off. Can the Minister reassure me that for those involved in the administration of naloxone kits and aftercare—she mentioned families, and broader access for homelessness charities—the training component is as secure as possible, so that everything is done to avoid further drug-related deaths?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Healthcare Provision: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank you for your comments about self-regulation. In the first Westminster Hall debate of the parliamentary term, especially as it is on healthcare, it is good to start off in the spirit of self-regulation. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing the debate, and for his speech, which was a tour de force. It was wide ranging, reflecting on socialist history. From the topics that he covered, and from his history of advocating for his constituents over the years, his deep-seated passion for delivering high-quality health services is clear, particularly as regards the cross-party campaign for a new dental school. He put a very precise question to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response. One subject that piqued my interest was the question of the NHS being in service of whom and to what end—particularly with reference to his points about the NHS being the greatest representation of socialism in the modern day. Dare I say it: I believe the NHS exists to serve the people, but the state does not exist to serve the NHS. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) focused on the importance of productivity and on delivering tangible results to our constituents, as well as to hear about his support for the dental school. He was right to point out that the challenges of the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the rebuild programme, which I will return to. I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who again raised concerns about the James Paget centre and dental care, and the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), which covered his campaign for a new GP surgery in Wixams, which he is a very strong advocate for. He also made important comments on the accountability of integrated care systems. I cannot cover all the speeches made today, but dentistry and delivery were the themes. We are all here because, as re-elected and newly elected Members of Parliament, we are passionate about delivering health services for our constituents. We want success on that both in our constituencies and across the UK. In some ways, I think it is a bit easier for the Minister to make her speech than it is for me to make mine, and I wish I was on the opposite Benches—although obviously not in the Labour party—to deliver it. I anticipate that she will start by saying that, in some way, the economy is broken or that there are huge financial pressures. She will probably go on to say that the NHS is, in inverted commas, “broken”. I am quite concerned about that language, and particularly about the morale of our NHS workers when such statements are made. The Minister will then describe her plans. That is where I feel for her, because she will be very pleasant and supportive, and I know she is passionate about the subject—she will recognise that this speech is very similar to the one she gave in a debate on dentistry back in 2022. Unfortunately, she will be evasive about her Government’s plans because she is on a bit of a sticky wicket. The Labour Government have decided that they will review a lot of work that has already been put in to deliver for people in the east of England. Hinchingbrooke hospital is at risk. Queen Elizabeth hospital, James Paget university hospital, Watford general hospital, West Suffolk hospital, Cambridge cancer research hospital and many other projects across the UK are under review, despite all the work that has gone into them over the years. It is on the Minister, because that is how integrated care system accountability works in our system under the Health and Care Act 2022—we are accountable to our constituents, but ICSs are accountable to her—so I ask her to reassure our constituents and the people who have put the work into developing those programmes that they will be delivered as promised by the previous Conservative Government. Will she think again about supporting dental vans to deal, on a temporary basis, with some of the dentistry challenges?

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I believe that tributes have not yet been paid to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his fantastic maiden speech—I apologise if I did not notice that. I want to put on the record what a wonderful speech he gave, particularly his personal story, his campaigning for those who have suffered child loss and his work for the north. I hope that we have seen a future Minister for the north in him. I thank my constituents for returning me to the re-formed Runneymede and Weybridge constituency. Since then, several people have asked me, “Ben, you’ve been a Back Bencher in the party of government, and now you’re a Back Bencher in opposition. How’s your job going to change?” I said, “Actually, the main job won’t change that much.” I am here to support the Government to succeed. I want them to succeed—we all need them to succeed. I do not want the Labour party in power, but I want the Government to succeed. I am here to hold the Government to account and to work with them to ensure that things go well. My mission continues to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving—something that I am sure my constituents were sick of hearing during my re-election campaign. I look forward to continuing to deliver for people locally. I am proud to represent Runnymede and Weybridge constituents. One of the best things about the area I live in and am proud to represent is our wonderful communities. Under the boundary changes, we have taken in Cobham, Downside, Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon, which have fantastic local communities. If hon. Members will indulge me, I want to talk about one of our community champions, Councillor Charu Sood, who sadly is very poorly with cancer and is undergoing treatment in hospital. Charu is a councillor for St George’s Hill and is the embodiment of a local community champion. In the years since her election in 2018, she has achieved a huge amount: setting up Weybridge in Bloom and Sew Weybridge, which prepared personal protective equipment during the crisis, supporting Ukrainian refugees and raising funds for various charities. She is an amazing community champion, and I pay tribute to her and wish her well in her ongoing treatment. In the two minutes I have left, I would like to talk about amendment (g), which stands in my name, to the motion on His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech. Sadly, my amendment was not picked for a vote, but I see it as the first stage in the battle against the Government’s awful policy to tax education. Like many people across the UK, and in Runnymede and Weybridge, where one in five children are educated in the independent sector, as a family we have also chosen independent education for our children, so I declare a financial interest as part of this campaign. I have spoken to many independent schools in my patch, which have told me that 5% to 10% of kids will move back to the state sector as a result of the policy. Most parents who send their kids to independent schools are not the mega-rich magnates characterised by the Government, but, like all parents, people who make difficult budgeting decisions on how to spend their money. The policy of taxing education, which we have never done before and never should, will only put more pressure on the state sector. There will be more disruption for the kids who are forced to move out—disruption that the covid generation of children just do not need. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the challenges, the problems and the fact that a lot of children with special educational needs in independent education do not have education, health and care plans, and are thus saving the Government money, and think again about this awful policy. I will hold them to account, as will many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.