Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the opening speeches from the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). However, context is key. The backdrop to the Gracious Speech is a Labour party engaged in open warfare—we heard something of that in earlier speeches—and a huge amount of uncertainty over what will happen in relation to the leadership of the Labour party and the current Prime Minister, and that uncertainty is playing out in the financial markets. The message that I want to convey to Labour Members is this: “Whatever you are going to do, please just do it quickly, because we need to move on.” The country needs leadership, and there are a great many important things that we need to be getting on with. As Labour Members are mulling over their options, I want to give the House some feedback from my constituency on a couple of issues affecting its residents. The message from the constituency is that small and medium enterprise is the backbone of our economy, but it is now under intolerable pressure. Let me give a couple of examples. I received a letter from One Cobham—a business improvement district covering Cobham, in my constituency—which was co-signed by 50 other BID members, that raised the issue of business rates in particular, but also rises in rent, wages and utility costs. Two companies have already gone bust recently, and this is putting intolerable pressure on the high street and individual businesses.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, I find it astounding that, according to my understanding, in response to the planning decision being granted our security services said that they would take measures to start moving sensitive digital cables. It strikes me that a decision about sensitive digital cables should have been pertinent to the planning application in the first place. The Government remain reluctant to name China as a threat to UK national security, despite the overwhelming and growing portfolio of evidence. In case the Government are still in any doubt, we need look only at the oral testimony given to this Committee by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for a clear picture of the role of China and its state affiliates at the forefront of the cyber-security threats to our critical sectors. Given that established and growing threat, new clause 3 would compel the Secretary of State to review, among other matters, the cyber-security risk to surrounding critical networks in the vicinity of the super-embassy site in the City of London. In the Commons debate on the embassy application in June last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) reminded the Minister for Housing and Planning that the Government’s own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. My hon. Friend made specific reference to the Wapping telephone and internet exchange that would be surrounded on three sides by this new embassy—not to mention the fibre cables I referred to earlier, which carry highly sensitive information and run beneath this site.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The cloud providers tell me that the energy costs are crippling, which is highly problematic, and that is why we need to drive those costs down. They talk about the challenges of getting data centres built and about planning considerations, which are a concern across the country. They talk about the taxation environment and costs on businesses more generally, particularly when they are footloose, and they talk about the regulatory framework. Pretty much all of those things are not specifically in the Bill, with the exception of the regulatory framework, so there is a lot that is suppressing the opportunities for cloud providers and others in the sector and hindering them from doing business and succeeding. There is a broader point to make about the Bill and the philosophy behind it, because there is something that we have to avoid. There is a sense in the UK that we are getting gummed up by regulation and obsessing more and more about limitations and restrictions to businesses. In that environment, people and organisations that do well financially, succeed and grow are seen as either targets or cheats—as something that we can go for, tax and punish. We have lost or diminished our can-do attitude when it comes to supporting the risk takers and the entrepreneurs, who are the people and organisations building the MSPs and data centres on which our economy relies. Over and above that, there is a cultural issue that is impacting our IT and tech sector. As legislators we should ensure that the thing we have direct control over, which is the legislation in front of us, imposes as small a regulatory burden as possible while still ensuring that it is sufficient to meet our aims. We must listen to businesses and hear their concerns. We hear time and again that the lack of clarity, particularly in this part of the Bill, is putting them at financial and legal risk. That is a very substantial concern.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for raising housing targets and planning in local authorities. The majority of my constituency is covered by Runnymede local authority and, I think, roughly a third by Elmbridge local authority. In the Runnymede authority, there is a local plan, so there is no risk of the opportunistic development that he mentions. In the Elmbridge local authority, there is no local plan, so there is opportunistic development. Applications are under way that are causing huge concern to local residents in the Cobham, Downside, Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott area in particular. In fact, at the end of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State along with councillors from Elmbridge to raise our concerns about the fact that, because of local government reorganisation, again Surrey has found itself stuck in stasis. There is a local plan in Elmbridge. Can that be put together by the time we hit the election of the shadow authorities? When you think about it, the term itself is an awful one—try knocking on doors and asking for support for the shadow authorities! What is Elmbridge to do? Do people living in the Elmbridge part of my constituency effectively have to wait a year and a half, until we have the full authority going when the shadow authority transfers over, before we can have some sensible progress when it comes to getting plans in place to protect people from opportunistic development? That is before we even talk about the scale of the housing targets, whose spread is disproportionate in Elmbridge; and I will ask the Minister later about the absence of a commitment for a Surrey mayor, who would in part be responsible for planning decisions. I hope Members can see that it is all a bit of a mess, and my constituents and local businesses are stuck in the middle. No topic is more sensitive or concerning than where we find ourselves with special educational needs provision. We all know what happens when that is not fully funded. I welcome the work that the county council and Councillor Jonathan Hulley have been doing to improve transparency and engagement locally, really turning up the dial on what is happening for families and children with special educational needs, but ultimately we need national changes to services and support, and the funding to bring forward delivery. Without the local funding, the opportunities for children to reach their full potential are limited. It leads to failure demand, which is when services do not provide what is needed early on, thereby creating more demand in the system later, and that harms and limits children. That is notwithstanding all the pressures on families and siblings and on schools, which are going above and beyond to try to support those children. The Government know these risks—I know the Minister knows and appreciates them. I hope the Government also know that it is a false economy to cut costs right now. The resulting economic and social impact of not funding these essential services will be calamitous locally. Of course, as night follows day, I fully expect Government Members and others to see this as an opportunity to blame the Conservative Government, and of course I acknowledge that local government has struggled as a result of difficult financial decisions over the years, but there really is no more capacity for cuts. That is why we need to address the issue now. I want to use this debate as a plea to move beyond any sort of blame game or political posturing and work together to address the real risks that we face and establish a sound financial basis for effective local authority finances. Given the clear risks, more than anything else we now need certainty. Residents and businesses need to know that they will not be shackled with high costs resulting from other local authorities’ poor financial management. Businesses and charities that have contracts and partnerships need certainty about their future. We all need to know that there will be adequate funding so that we all retain access to the essential services that local authorities provide. That cannot wait until after the May elections. Our voters need to know what authorities they are voting councillors into. They need clarity over the scope of the authorities’ powers. This debate is the Minister’s opportunity to answer the questions of 1.5 million Surrey residents. How will local authority debt be dealt with? Will central Government ensure effective funding, or do Ministers intend to rely on constant tax rises despite the cost of living pressures? These are council tax rises—taxes on working people, as she and the Government, I assume, would define them. Will we have a mayor in Surrey? If so, can we have the details? How can we prevent the long-term risks if the Government continue to prioritise short-term funding cuts? For once—just for once—will this Government put Surrey first?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for his highly technical and broad speech, and particularly for his points about the environmental concerns about quarries. I want to talk about Whitehall farm and the surrounding area, in which there have been several applications for gravel extraction by Cemex. That part of my patch used to be entirely in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency but, as a consequence of the boundary review, is now on the border between it and Windsor. The area is a wholly inappropriate place to build a gravel pit for a whole range of reasons. The need for gravel extraction at the site remains to be seen, bearing in mind that we are expecting the River Thames scheme, which will produce a lot of aggregate as part of the construction process. The traffic in the area is highly stretched, to say the least. Inappropriate HGVs going down small roads in Egham with level crossings are already causing traffic carnage.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point, please?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Brilliant. I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that she has reflected on the importance in our democracy of Members being able to raise points with Ministers—something that I mentioned in my speech in terms of local representation. Given that she is explaining, in effect, that the system is perfect and there is nothing to see here, could she comment on why so many Members decided to participate in the debate?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I invite the hon. Member to look at the report that Parliament released on the reform of child maintenance, particularly on the barriers that were set up in the system, both in terms of direct and indirect payments. I think all of us across the House would agree that the child maintenance system needs reform. The issue with the two-child benefit cap is that most, if not all, parents love their children and would like to have more children, should money, time and other things— [ Interruption. ] Okay, I stand corrected, but people make decisions when planning their families based on the resources they have, whether those are personal resources, time or money. It is fundamentally unfair to say to one group of people who are making difficult budgetary decisions in relation to having more children, “You’re going to be taxed more so that you can pay for other people who are not subject to those difficult budgetary decisions because they are not employed at the moment.” That is fundamentally not fair.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this timely and important debate, as well as his characteristically forceful and measured speech. It has been a fun debate with lots of contributions. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities going forward, but I want to draw out a few particularly powerful contributions. First, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the issues around the prevalence of digital exclusion and the use of the veteran card. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) rightly pointed out the issues that the gov.uk One Login has had. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out the problem of the prevalence of digital poverty among the elderly. Finally, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who always speaks with great wisdom in these debates, spoke about the issue of multiple NHS logins. This plan will make Government-issued digital ID compulsory to access work. Ignore the piffle—this is de facto mandatory. Given the contentious history of mandatory ID schemes in this country, one might have expected a policy of such weighty constitutional importance to appear in the Government’s manifesto, but it was conspicuously absent—like most current Government policy. Earlier this year, I stood across the Dispatch Box from the previous Minister, debating the digital verification system brought in by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That scheme created a trust framework for a register of approved providers of digital identity verification services. Building on the competitive ecosystem established by the last Government, private sector companies are already providing right to rent, right to work and many other identity checks.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Eight years ago, Weybridge community hospital burned down. After a long journey, the replacement finally received planning consent last week; all it needs now is for the Secretary of State to sign the cheque on the dotted line. Will he do so as soon as possible?