Preparedness for National Emergencies

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. Given the number of hon. Members here, we could have had a three-hour debate on his wide-ranging speech. I will be brief so colleagues can get in.

In Runnymede and Weybridge, we have flooding incidents almost every year. Thankfully, they are often not huge, but sometimes they very much are. The local resilience forum exists to deal with the really big emergencies, but we often have what I call sub-acute flooding events—where there is enough flooding to cause risk to properties and people, but not enough to trigger an LRF major response.

The problem for people facing flooding incidents is that Floodline operates as a telephone directory. The roads are dealt with by the county council. The Environment Agency deals with the direct response. The fire service deals with emergency rescue. The local authorities, Runnymede borough council or Elmbridge borough council, deal with different responses. We have Affinity Water, which is for direct freshwater coming to people’s homes, and we have Thames Water, which deals with the drainage. Each is responsible for a different bit. We have the county council, which leads on overall flood preparedness. It is too disjointed.

What we need locally, and also nationally, are flood control centres that can bring all these different organisations together to co-ordinate a flood response. A few years ago, during the last big flood that we had while I have been an MP, my team and I ended up dealing with a lot of the flood response and communicating directly with people. I am very happy to do that, but we need a flood control centre to be able to do so. I think that would help our national resilience.

MPs, broadly speaking, have a role in being embedded in our communities. We usually know what is happening at all different levels and we have key contacts on the ground. On that basis, for the local resilience response, does the Minister agree that MPs should have direct access to local resilience forum chairs, both before and during an emergency event?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

I will get on to preparedness and the impact of global events, including in the middle east, but I will come back to my hon. Friend on specifics. Responsibility for the overarching resilience system is led by the COBR Directorate in the Cabinet Office. Colleagues are rightly asking about the role the Cabinet Office takes in this work. It leads work on cross-cutting and high-priority risks, and in scenarios with major impacts, it uses the COBR mechanism to manage the Government’s response to major crises or events.

The UK Government define resilience as the ability to anticipate, assess, prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from shocks. The resilience landscape is extensive and encompasses natural hazards, deliberate attacks, geopolitical instability and so on. The foundation of the Government’s approach is the national security risk assessment, which identifies and assesses the most serious acute risks facing the UK over a two to five-year time horizon. Under the lead Government Department model, each NSRA risk is owned by a lead Government Department, ensuring that those with the most relevant expertise, relationships and levers are responsible for putting the necessary planning response and recovery arrangements in place for each risk area.

The Government are also taking steps to enhance our readiness for the highest impact, whole-of-system crises called catastrophic risks, including by explicitly embedding the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book. Alongside that, the Government have an extensive programme of assurance to understand how prepared we are to assess risks, including through a dedicated red teaming capability in the Government Office for Science and independent expert panel reviews.

Together, this approach ensures that the Government collectively understand and are prepared for the risks the UK faces overall, which relies on a collaborative approach and a shared ownership across Government Departments. The Government are committed to working in partnership with both the devolved Governments and the local tier to effectively plan for and respond to risks wherever they occur.

The Cabinet Office leads for Government on the overall response to severe weather. That is, in effect, a co-ordinating role, as individual Departments lead for the response, planning and longer term resilience of the sectors they represent. A key component is the severe weather resilience network, which is chaired by the COBR Directorate and comprises representatives across Government Departments.

On the matter of heat, periods of high temperature and heat waves are not a new phenomenon, and their risk—in terms of both impact and likelihood—is well documented in planning advice from the Government. There are tried and tested arrangements in place to warn of impending extreme temperatures, to review preparedness and, if needed, to co-ordinate the Government’s response to the impacts that they may have.

On the devolved authorities, it is vital that the four nations across the UK work together to keep communities safe, so that we can ensure that we are most effectively using the different levers that each Government hold. On the matter of local resilience forums, it is also essential that we strengthen resilience at the local level, and the Government are committed to the stronger LRF trailblazers programme, which provides selected areas with the opportunity to test approaches and strengthen leadership. I encourage local MPs to engage with that leadership.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Frith]

I will not, as I want to make some progress, and I am afraid there is still a lot to cover.

On covid, several Members made excellent points about the need to recall, remember and learn from that damning period. One such example is the significant improvement made to our crisis response structures and capabilities in line with the recommendations made in the covid-19 module 1 inquiry. That included establishing the National Situation Centre in 2021 to improve the use of data in crisis response, creating a single Cabinet committee for resilience to ensure ministerial oversight.

On the issue of education and resilience, we must provide excellent training, and exercising is also essential to ensure that individual sectors can work together to prepare for, respond to and recover from crises. The Government have also established the UK resilience plan.

On the matter of AI, AI sovereignty is defined as the UK having resilient access to key AI capabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) referred to the need to counter the increasing threats posed by AI that is housed and created away from these shores. Sovereign capability is vital, and the launch of the sovereign AI unit is vital as we transition towards that authority, as it will help the UK to win at strategically important parts of that value chain.

Civil society also plays an important role in the UK’s resilience, including the many voluntary, community and faith sector organisations that contribute to community-level resilience and emergency planning. The resilience of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is of central importance to ensuring that the essential services on which the public rely continue to operate. Given the fundamental and connected nature of those services, failure has the potential to cause cascading and catastrophic consequences. The resilience action plan’s all-hazards approach, combined with the priorities in the strategic defence review, the national security strategy and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, underpins the Government’s commitment to improving the security and resilience of CNI.

On smart devices and tech resilience, the Government take an actor-agnostic, risk-based approach to supply chain resilience. Instead of reacting to individual firms or components in isolation, we must focus on the structural choke points and systemic dependencies that create national-level vulnerability, regardless of where in the chain they are. While cellular modules present some specific cyber-threats, those can be mitigated in effectively the same way as any other cyber-risks. Therefore, existing work to strengthen our cyber-resilience will impact how vulnerable sectors and organisations are to threats via the cellular internet of things.

In conclusion, the Government continue to regularly engage the public and parliamentarians on risk and resilience through our annual statement to Parliament, which gives a strategic overview of the current risk picture. The next annual statement will be made in July this year, and it will provide detailed updates on progress made to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months.

Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor.

I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks.

My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective.

Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening.

But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions?

To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act.

Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act.

A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate.

Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer]

I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.

[Emily Darlington]

Yes, they would be. I am trying to say that the OSA does not limit this, but it does limit some of the other material. It is important that there is a place for the Government to say what platforms should or should not be able to publish, but they should not micromanage. I agree on that. It should not be like the Lord Chamberlain saying, “Here are the words that you are allowed to use”, or, “The Queen does not approve of those phrases”, but we should be clear that we limit free speech where it has a real, negative impact on individuals or on society, and that we are protecting people because of their age, gender or other protected characteristics.

The shadow Minister raised an important discussion about publishers, plurality and biases that are already in the system. The systems are designed by men and the content, for the most part, focuses on men—not completely, but the algorithms are traditionally designed by men and therefore feed what they think men want, or not even what they want, but what will keep them on the platform the longest. That is their business model.

I appreciate the Minister reiterating the Government’s position that we believe that women should have access to accurate medical information. There are two sides to that: making sure that we suppress inaccurate medical information; and making sure that we have the mechanisms to show what is medically accurate with a tick. We should then make sure that that is the material that people see.

I appreciate what you said about appeal mechanisms, but it is difficult to appeal against shadow-banning, so we need to talk further about that. Again, that is about transparency on algorithms, which you were talking about, and about our dialogue with social media platforms. We need to ask them, what is more damaging? Is it the sexualised content, the misogynistic content or the health advice? We need to have that serious discussion with them.

We also need to think much wider than the four big social media companies. That is not always where people go for such advice. We have heard of experiences on LinkedIn and many other platforms that show that this is a widespread issue. Finally, you are absolutely right about media literacy, so that we know what is good health content and what is based on rubbish science. That is part of how we get through this. [Interruption.] I thank everyone for attending.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?

[Liz Kendall]

No.

Debate on the Address

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

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.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a different model of business rates for small businesses that is linked to profitability and that has a maximum cap, rather than their having to pay the flat rate regardless of what they are making or not making?

[Dr Spencer]

In a different world, we would have a very different King’s Speech. We would have the alternative Conservative King’s Speech from the Leader of the Opposition—soon, hopefully, to be the Prime Minister—which would scrap business rates for those with rateable values of up to, I think, £110,000. I ask Members please to look at the details.

In recent weeks, I have visited another company, in Egham in the north of my constituency. It is a very specialist logistics company, which transports medical devices to be used in pathology investigations. In fact, it has probably supplied the pathology department at St Tommy’s across the river. The company has been operating for 40 years, but when I met its representatives, they told me that it faced going to the wall because of the increases in business rates and tax burdens. I hope to God that the company will be OK—that the Government will change course and that it continues to be successful—but if it does go to the wall, all the jobs and livelihoods of the people who work for it will go with it.

That is a story that affects businesses and organisations across my constituency. In Chertsey, Addlestone, Weybridge, Woodham, Row Town, New Haw, Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon—in all the different parts of my constituency —businesses are struggling, and free enterprise is under pressure. It is dying, and it is dying because of the tax and regulatory burdens that are being imposed on businesses by this Government. For all the great words in the King’s Speech, the fundamental problem is the Government’s tax and spend approach and the intolerable pressure that is being placed on free enterprise and business.

This is my final message to Labour Members: “As you agonise over the direction of the Labour party leadership over the next few days, please just remember that you cannot tax a company that has gone bust.”

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger]

That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.

I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.

I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened carefully to his speech. Given what he heard at the Committee this morning and his background and experience, does he regret Olly Robbins’s sacking?

[Alex Ballinger]

I feel very sympathetic to Olly Robbins. Olly Robbins—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Yesterday, I sat through over two and a half hours of questions and responses to the Prime Minister. His responses were pretty much focused on process, when really what is fundamental to the issue at hand are judgment and national security.

We do not need some sort of fancy UK vetting dossier to know that Mandelson is a risk to national security. What is more, above and beyond the impact on the victims of Epstein, it is a fact, surely, that the FCDO and the machineries of Government knew that the American Administration very likely had compromising information on Epstein. Despite Mandelson’s close association with Epstein, we appointed him as ambassador to a foreign power—admittedly an ally, but nevertheless a foreign power—to conduct difficult negotiations that would be critical to our national interest, knowing that it was highly likely that that country had compromising information on that individual. That, for me, is the most egregious, fundamental failure to protect our national security. We have learned that this was a political decision. It was the Prime Minister’s decision but, what is more, it reflects on all Ministers, given their collective responsibility.

I strongly believe in forgiveness. The Prime Minister has come here and made an apology, of sorts. It was a very caveated apology: “I didn’t know. People didn’t tell me. People lied and lied to my team.” We know that our apologies have value only if we truly believe that we did something wrong. The Prime Minister needs to finally show some leadership and take responsibility for his actions, for all of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Modern warfare is technological warfare, so UK research and innovation is critical for our defence. When the Secretary of State has spoken with the Defence Secretary about the defence investment plan, as I assume she has, which sectors has she prioritised for investment in UK companies in research and development—drones, space, cyber, chips? Could she spell out her vision of the role of UK tech in defence, if she has one?

[Liz Kendall]

As the former head of MI6 has repeatedly said, the single biggest thing that we could do to strengthen our defence and national security is to invest in research and development. UKRI has had the biggest funding settlement from any Government ever under this Labour Government. The Conservatives want to slash UKRI’s budget by £6 billion, which would wipe out all our funding for AI, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and much more. We are backing our defence sector, with 10% of the defence equipment budget going on backing UK businesses—the Tories would slash the funding on which they depend.

Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham]

Yes, I agree.

One of the most profound lessons that we must learn from Storm Goretti is to increase communications infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. Many of our constituents were left without power or broadband in areas that have weak or no mobile phone signal, so they struggled to get help. Although we are frequently told by the four network providers that they have 99% 4G coverage, that does not ring true to anyone in Cornwall, where we struggle to get a signal on a regular basis.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time, and this has been a fascinating debate. Runnymede and Weybridge is frequently hit by flooding, but I have noticed that one problem is that there are so many different responders, sometimes seemingly acting independently. When residents contact the flood line, they find that it operates more like an intercom service, as opposed to taking information and giving them a direct response. I am calling for a flood control centre—a single point of contact that can co-ordinate flood response and preparatory works in my area. I am happy to speak to the hon. Lady after the debate about the work that I am trying to lobby the Government about. By the sounds of it, that could also help with the response in Cornwall.

[Jayne Kirkham]

That sounds like an interesting proposal. Our local resilience centre was in Exeter, and I think that is why the category 1 responders did not declare a major incident; Exeter is a long way away from us, so I understand the hon. Gentleman’s idea of having a flood control centre.

When Goretti hit, the Cabinet Office activated the national alert messaging. That was important and successful as an early-warning system, but it was impacted by the patchy mobile coverage. We need a more truthful method of measuring mobile coverage, and a means of applying pressure to the providers, so that they meet their obligations. Goretti also exposed the fact that most mobile masts do not have back-up generators or battery reserves, making them vulnerable to power loss. This contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under more established resilience duties. Telecoms are just as essential, and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that in practice, not just in statute.

During Goretti, many residents with no internet or mobile signal found that digital landlines did not work without power. Ofcom’s rules require only one hour of battery back-up for vulnerable customers, which is inadequate. An Ofcom technical report from last year noted that about two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour, but the number who could do so after six hours was redacted, and was described as being “far fewer”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this important debate. Her dedicated advocacy for the resilience of rural communities, particularly in the wake of Storm Goretti, is well-known across this House and in her part of the world. She has spoken powerfully this evening about the experience of communities in Cornwall, following recent extreme weather events, and I join her in paying tribute to the local communities, first responders and emergency services that step forward in these moments of crisis.

The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all measures necessary to build national resilience to external shocks or threats that could cause disruption to our way of life, now and in the future. The UK benefits from world-leading weather warning and information services, which provide information and advice to the public when bad weather is forecast. Weather events can have wide-ranging impacts on communities, including on homes, health, transport, energy and communications, and the relevant lead Department for each of those affected areas has a responsibility to work closely with stakeholders on the recovery from an emergency.

We are absolutely committed to building resilience on both a national and a local level, and while we acknowledge the Climate Change Committee’s assessment of the third national adaptation programme, we are not simply relying on short-term measures. Alongside delivering the actions in the programme to address climate risks to the UK, we are taking significant, long-term action now to become more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as flooding and overheating. We are building new reservoirs and cutting water leaks to help secure our water supplies. This includes a record £10.5 billion investment in flood defences to protect 900,000 properties.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a little bit of progress. It also includes £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure.

I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti, and to hear at first hand about the challenges they faced. I was very pleased last week to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit Helston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall.

In the period preceding the storm, our world-leading weather warning service played a significant part in the initial Government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday 8 January; the Met Office issued a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and parts of Cornwall. The storm brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales. Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. The conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior Government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons are captured across Government to improve our response to future severe weather events.

The Government are also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain that is underpinned by diverse sources; robust domestic production; and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing the sustainable production of food, feed, and plant-based resources. I also met Aled Jones, the former president of the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation’s food supply. I recognise that the Government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure that our food supply is safeguarded for the long term.

As has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather-related crises. They support the functioning of essential services and keep people connected when they need it most. The public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged during severe winds, and most handsets rely on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines across the UK already having been migrated. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by a resilient power supply. Through close co-ordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry, we are strengthening back-up power arrangements, improving situational awareness, and ensuring that the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.

Middle East

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The appointment of the new Cabinet Secretary has no bearing whatsoever on this process or on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address. As the hon. Member would expect, the Government will comply with the terms of the Humble Address.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

An additional concern that I have with the appointment of Peter Mandelson is that the American Government had compromising information in the form of the Epstein files. I wonder what consideration was given to the appointment of an ambassador who would be going into sensitive negotiations with a foreign Government knowing that that Government had compromising information. Will the Minister confirm that those considerations and that information is in scope of the disclosures?

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure which documents specifically the hon. Gentleman refers to. I note that the documents that were released by the US Department of Justice, and previously via Bloomberg in September 2025, were documents that the Prime Minister and the Government were not privy to until those disclosures had taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?

[Liz Kendall]

I am very aware of the strong views on this issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, and others, think that there are problems with a social media ban for young people, and I want to listen closely to those views. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was Labour Members who stood up to X and Grok, when the Conservative spokesperson said it was a “legal grey area”, when it was not, and accused us of being like the mullahs of Iran. I am proud of the action we have taken to keep kids safe online; let us see what the hon. Gentleman has done.