Dr Ben Spencer

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 446

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Sadly, this Budget does not tackle the critical national issues that we face. It does not have a plan to reduce spending on welfare. It does not have a plan to increase spending on defence. It does not have definitive interventions to improve growth, tackle our spiralling debt or deal with the record high taxes all of us currently face. What about locally? How does the Budget score for my constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge? Does it keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving? Well, there is nothing on level crossings and not much on rail or roads. On backing jobs and local businesses, it does not do anything about the catastrophic employer national insurance contributions. What about defending our green belt and our natural environment? There is nothing on the Environment Agency. On protection from flooding—I am glad that the Minister with responsibility flooding is on the Front Bench—there is no mention of the River Thames scheme in the Budget. The largest infrastructure scheme put forward by the Environment Agency is notably absent, which is deeply, deeply concerning. How about supporting children and families? Again, there is nothing on special educational needs and disabilities or on childcare. The scorecard from Runnymede and Weybridge on keeping my constituency moving is nil, nil, nil, nil, nil. Why is that? It is because this Budget is a tomorrow Budget. It is a future Budget, with all the key decisions left until after a review or until this Parliament is over. I have some news for those on the Government Benches and those on the Opposition Benches to the left of me. We know what that means. The fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister would rather have a non-Budget and call a general election than make the hard decisions today tells us everything we need to know about this Labour Government. There is another way with the Conservatives, and I am looking forward to it and so are my constituents. <em>Ordered</em>, That the debate be now adjourned.<em>—(Michael Wheeler.)</em> <em>Debate to be resumed tomorrow.</em>

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   This has been one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected debates that I have had the pleasure to listen to in this House, with fascinating contributions from the hon. Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. As we conclude Second Reading, I am pleased to reaffirm our support from the Opposition Benches for the changes before us. The provisions that are being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law. To single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out the responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith is not a distinction that has any place in modern Britain. As a Roman Catholic, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long, but this is not ultimately about any one faith; it is about the fundamental principle that a person’s religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an Opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully. We therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church. There remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process. That respects equality before the law and the particular constitutional position of the established Church. We can respect the traditions and institutions that have shaped our country while ensuring that they are updated to remove discriminatory or outdated practices. Two hundred years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this Chamber or to speak from this Dispatch Box. Progress towards equality has been made throughout our history, and I welcome this latest step. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I am therefore pleased to support this Bill.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Young People’s Health

   The new Weybridge health centre in my constituency, which is being rebuilt following the fire in 2017, was planned to provide a range of general services. When I visited it recently, I learned that the first floor still does not have tenants in place. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Phoenix family practice to discuss how we can ensure that Weybridge gets the best possible broad healthcare provision?

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Inheritance Tax

   Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the bank of mum and dad comes from the hard work of mum and dad so that they can pass things on to their children?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Inheritance Tax

   This is, without doubt, one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question: when someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children’s future, why are they penalised by this Government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored, so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subject to the politics of envy? The answer, I hope, will be after the next election. Labour’s answer is always the same. Its instinct is to ask, “Who can we tax?” That is not me saying that, but the Work and Pensions Secretary, who admitted that every conversation he had had with Labour Back-Bench MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. It is constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture them now, sitting high in their Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend. Surrey and the south-west comes into their sights: the successful businesses, the skilled workforce and the resulting high house prices. Rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax. But people’s assets are not lottery winnings. They are the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness; it is a penalty on individual responsibility. It sends a damaging message that those who work hard, build a business, and save for their and their family’s future will be punished for doing so. I believe in fairness, not redistribution. At the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice: a Labour Government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country’s defence and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children’s future; or a Conservative party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual not the state, and that planning for the future should be encouraged, not penalised. Whether it is an increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax or the family farm tax, Labour’s approach is to tax success. Labour is asset-stripping our country, and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity. At the next general election, the choice could not be clearer: a Labour party, facilitated by the Liberal Democrats, that sees taxpayers as targets; or a Conservative party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work, and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. People’s money is their own. It is not the Government’s money that Labour has not taxed yet.

   Hansard source
6. 11 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   Will the hon. Lady give way?

   Hansard source
7. 11 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

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

   Hansard source
8. 11 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   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.<span id="1388" class="column-number" data-column-number="1388"></span> 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.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Topical Questions

   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?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Direction of Government

    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?

    Hansard source