partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.

Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology

Labour Party

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
1,235
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
533
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
319
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
23
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
28
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
4
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    They can shout all they like, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the former Chancellor restored the confidence of the markets after the Conservatives trashed Britain’s reputation with their catastrophic mini-Budget. She created the platform for our Labour Government to invest in public services, protect the most vulnerable, foster innovation and navigate the headwinds of the last two years. During her time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey established a record that the Conservative Front Bench could not begin to touch. Those are the facts. None the less, against the backdrop of the enormous challenges this country faces, the Chancellor, as he set out yesterday, is taking action to tackle the cost of living and give households breathing space today: help for 20 million households to heat their homes this winter; freezing fuel duty to keep prices down at the pump; helping with the everyday cost of the weekly shop so that people have more money in their pockets; action on energy bills; and the minimum wage, the national living wage and the state pension all going up to help people out. No one is suggesting that these measures solve everything for everyone, everywhere, all at once, but people can see that we are doing everything we can, as fast as we can, to give them breathing space today and fresh hope for the future; to show that this Government and this Prime Minister have got their backs; and to show that we can still do big things as a nation, that Government can make a difference to people’s lives, and that Britain is a country we can still believe in. That is important, as we look beyond the optimism of the first 100 days of this new Government and our new Prime Minister to the brighter future that lies ahead for our country if we make the right choices. Yes, we face great challenges, but the character of a nation is not defined by the challenges it faces, but how it chooses to respond to them. And be in no doubt: it is a choice. We choose not to be daunted by the scale of the challenge, but to be motivated by it—to face the future not with fear, but with confidence, and to choose hope. We choose it because we know what hope can do. Look at what this Labour Government have delivered in the past two years: half a million children out of poverty; waiting lists down by a quarter of a million; the asylum backlog down 60% in a year; small boat crossings at their lowest in six years; the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year; free breakfast clubs <span id="491" class="column-number" data-column-number="491"></span>feeding 680,000 children; six train operators brought back into public ownership; and defence spending up by £14 billion compared with the Conservatives’ final year in office. Lots done and lots more still to do, but so many reasons to believe that our best days lie ahead.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I can absolutely confirm that thanks to the responsible choices made by the Chancellor and his predecessor, we have headroom to weather shocks, and the Chancellor is drawing on that. On capital budget reprioritisation across Government, it is absolutely true to say that across the Cabinet, Ministers have been willing to prioritise within their own capital programmes in order to fund defence. We can be absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that this is a Chancellor, a Prime Minister and a team who choose to prioritise defence. I bet the right hon. Gentleman wishes that he made the same choices when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, instead of leaving our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. It was another great Healey—my predecessor, Denis Healey—who said that without strong defences, “we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”<span id="vol779_col551" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="551" data-volume-number="779">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]</span> The first duty of any Government—to keep our country safe—is a greater and more urgent challenge now than it has been for generations. The gravest dangers of the 20th century are returning, armed with the technologies of the 21st. Britain faces growing threats from state-sponsored terrorism, sabotage and hostile acts that are designed to disrupt our lives, undermine our security and spread fear. Yesterday, the Chancellor gave his response to those threats at this Dispatch Box, delivering more support to the frontline for freedom in Ukraine, plugging the £4.7 billion gap in the defence investment plan and confirming our unshakeable commitment to NATO to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. But he went even further, with a new target reflecting Labour’s commitment to fund defence spending at 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the commitment the Chancellor made at this Dispatch Box yesterday. That is a record the Conservatives cannot even begin to touch—

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    But I look forward to the hon. Gentleman defending the indefensible.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I have just set that out. It is there in the Budget. The Government have reallocated from capital programmes across Government to ensure that defence is fully funded. It is disappointing, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has become a running theme of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. When we sat on the Opposition Benches, I remember that Keir Starmer always made a virtue of standing with the Government on issues of national security and defence. We provided constructive challenge where we needed to, but we stood with the Government. This lot cannot help but try and score petty party political points at the expense of defence and national security. What is even more extraordinary is the enormous brass neck of the Opposition, considering their record. Just look at it: we had the smallest army since the Napoleonic wars; every single recruitment target was missed; morale fell to a record low of 40%; almost every equipment programme was over budget or behind schedule, and often both; and defence spending faced a real-terms cut between 2010 and 2024, falling from 2.5% of GDP to 2.3%. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> In the words of their own Defence Secretary, the armed forces were left “hollowed out and underfunded”. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> And now the Conservatives have the audacity to turn up and criticise a Labour Government who are investing more, investing more quickly, and cleaning up their mess.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I am trying to make my voice heard from the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have said from my first day as Defence Secretary, I trust this Chancellor to give us what we need to keep our country safe, and yesterday demonstrated why. His Budget proves why Labour can be trusted on defence—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> It does say that here, because I wrote it. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. That was Labour’s record before the Budget; this Budget takes us even further, and next year’s spending review will take us further still. What a contrast with the abysmal record of failure staring us in the face from the Opposition Benches. I appealed in my first statement to this House for national unity on national security. It is important that our allies and our adversaries know that we agree far more than we disagree. We all believe that we should spend more on defence; we all believe that we should stand with Ukraine; we all believe that we should invest <span id="493" class="column-number" data-column-number="493"></span>in homeland security. What a pity, then, that the Leader of the Opposition and her ragtag band of political vandals choose to play politics with national security. For the Opposition to do that in the current environment is bad enough; to do so with their abysmal record in government takes some brass neck.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants to defend that record.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I just do not know what the Opposition have to moan about. We came into government with the abysmal inheritance that we faced, and we chose straightaway to invest more in defence to clean up their mess. We have now gone even further than the NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 by choosing to set our own target of 3% by 2030. That is not just about the future; it is built on our record in our first two years. Defence spending has gone from 2.3%—

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    In a moment. Just so that we are clear, we have gone from spending 2.3% of our GDP on defence when we came into office to spending 2.7% next year. It is very clear that we are on the right trajectory. That is not a record that they can speak to. I do not know how they can be so shameless—

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    Let’s find out—I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I have been too generous with allowing interventions, but let me take that point head on. I think that is completely unfounded criticism—

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLabourWes Streeting

    Budget Resolutions

    I don’t care if he is the Chair of the Defence Committee. I would say it directly to him, and I am sure I will get the chance to say it to the entire Committee. It would be fair criticism if this Government had not already made decisions that are leading to the fastest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—not in future years but already, on the basis of our first two years in power. The Chair of the Defence Committee is a good friend, and I am sure that, just as I can take his criticism on the chin, he will take mine. I will gladly accept criticism where I think it is fair, but I robustly reject it where I think it is wrong. I have referred to the Conservatives’ record of 14 years in power. Let me contrast that with what I have presided over in the last 14 weeks: armed forces recruitment showing its longest run of growth for half a decade; 400 contracts signed, worth £4 billion; £400 million for spy drones for the Army; £135 million for Royal Navy torpedoes; £700 million for next-generation fighter jets; over £8 billion for our nuclear submarine fleet; and the UK’s sixth attack submarine and first ever space squadron launched. We have returned gun barrel manufacturing to the UK for the first time in decades; we are backing British industry to build the docks for our nuclear subs; we have increased monitoring of Russian vessels in the English channel; provided 50,000 apprenticeship opportunities for young people; welcomed record-breaking investment in Scotland; deployed our armed forces to help Saudi Arabia defend itself from Houthi attacks; bolstered support for Ukraine; and signed a landmark AI deal to access cutting-edge battlefield data. We have strengthened our NATO alliances, as I have visited Washington, Paris, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Reykjavík and Kyiv. We have mobilised with our allies in the Ukraine defence contact group, the E5 and the joint expeditionary force, and hosted our friends from Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, Qatar and Oman as well as the NATO Secretary-General. And in case the Conservatives missed it, as their party leader seemed to yesterday, on top of the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, we have set out our target to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. That is our record, and it is a record that the Conservatives cannot begin to touch. This is a Government who actually put our money where our mouth is—strengthening our armed forces, alliances and industrial base, and backing Britain by buying British. That is how to defend this country—not with the gimmicks and grandstanding of the Conservatives but by making this country ready with our allies to fight and win so that our adversaries think twice about launching an attack in the first place. The truth is that this is a more dangerous world, and that makes greater investment essential. Delivering what the Chancellor announced yesterday requires choices and trade-offs. We will ensure that every pound that we invest is well spent and creates jobs and opportunities—not just a Ministry of Defence but one of growth and opportunity. We will help to deliver the Prime Minister’s domestic agenda—stronger regional economies, a rebuilt industrial base, good jobs and better opportunities for the next generation. We will have a more resilient United Kingdom built by the British people to keep Britain safe. Spending on our defence is a measure of our commitment, but capability is a measure of our credibility. That is what this Labour Budget does, rooted in our values. It gives breathing space to working people. It gives us <span id="495" class="column-number" data-column-number="495"></span>fresh hope for the future, and it strengthens the security on which we all depend. Building a Britain ready to fight and building a country worth fighting for—that is our record and plan. That is why I am proud to stand at this Dispatch Box and commend the Budget to the House.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLabourWarinder Juss

    Business of the House

    The higher education mental health implementation taskforce was convened in 2023 to improve mental health support for higher education students and to ensure that universities were better equipped to support student wellbeing. This taskforce, chaired by Professor Sir Steve West, as the higher education student support champion, was expected to meet until May this year, but no minutes have been published since October 2025. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Department for Education to provide an update on the taskforce’s status, confirm whether Professor West is still in post, and set out when the taskforce expects to publish its final report and recommendations?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLabourTristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{90FD0593-C812-4DBF-8709-0DF25C670BCB}"> </QNum></strong> It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I have two questions. First, the Bill looks specifically at the crossing, but there are other infrastructure upgrades—as an MP in north Kent, my example is the A229 Blue Bell Hill upgrade. There are key junctions where congestion is a problem. In your view, does the Bill take into account the other, wider infrastructure upgrades that might be necessary? Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further. As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible <span id="11" class="column-number" data-column-number="11"></span>model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do. <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLabourTristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{8D064BCE-E979-4A4C-85B7-6F950722745A}"> </QNum></strong> Under the French model which you have cited as a template, 91% of roads are owned by privatised companies, and that is very different to the UK. They are extremely controversial and many accuse companies in France of price gouging. We have concerns about asset management and the valuations. You have said that the RAB model is potentially ideal, but is there any element of it that you can say is better than the French concessionary model? What teeth would you give the regulator to make it so, if we were to go down that route? What is missing from the RAB model that would make it more effective? <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> It is a good question. First, in the French example, I am well aware that it is quite expensive to drive on a French motorway. On the other hand, they have many more miles of motorway, and if it is too expensive you can take the equivalent of an A road for certain journeys. Judging by the number of people who drive on French motorways, I think people are generally willing to accept the costs, especially given that they have built many more miles of motorway just this century than we have in total. I could be proved wrong if it works really well, but the main challenge with the RAB model is the sheer uncertainty of whether the ORR is up to the task and has the right staff in place. It has never done this before. I know there have already been some concerns about <span id="33" class="column-number" data-column-number="33"></span>capacity issues and general commercial experience within the ORR. I would be concerned if the private sector had large commercial control and contract teams and the public sector did not have them and was out-negotiated. That is certainly possible if civil servants are not able to properly push back on price increases. I think the fundamental incentives in a RAB model are not right for delivering one-of-a-kind, unique pieces of infrastructure. It works a lot better for infrastructure that has very clear unit costs—for example, the cost of laying 100 metres of pipe. That is good because a regulator is clearly able to understand how much 100 metres of pipe costs to lay and can apply that across its base, whereas the cost of one lower Thames crossing is up in the air. Some additions from the private contractor might seem sensible; they might get away with that. Having a more environmentally friendly construction process certainly seems sensible on the face of it, but that also adds cost. I would want to be reassured that the ORR is up to the task and has both the capacity and the know-how to properly understand the arrangements it is entering into. <em><strong>Sam Dumitriu:</strong></em> You mentioned price gouging. It is important to work out what the main risks are. Roads are, in most cases, natural monopolies, and the best thing about being a monopoly is a quiet life. It is not necessarily that you have all these opportunities to gouge your customers; it is that the lack of competition means you are not forced to adopt cost-saving measures, or become more customer-friendly and so on. You might have a situation where various people are claiming quite high margins or they are being aggressive in that sense, but the UK has the other problem, where people are not on it around costs. They are not working out what the best structure is to ensure that costs keep falling. On Ben’s point, one possible way of resolving the issue is quite a radical reform that is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. I have always wondered whether it makes sense for the UK to have Ofgem doing RAB regulation for energy networks, Ofwat doing it for water, the ORR for road and rail and Ofcom for telecoms, or whether it makes sense to have a specialist economic regulator that deals with the costs of natural monopoly networks. That would have a bunch of advantages. It would potentially resolve some of the revolving door problems that you might see. It would also ensure that there is a similar expertise and a standard approach. You do not want varying approaches between all the regulators, because that suggests that they are doing something wrong when you have essentially the same economic problem to solve. As I say, however, that would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLabourTristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E82D8C92-EC40-438A-8079-60CF1B9D5440}"> </QNum></strong> The recent independent regulatory review of the ORR included a section specifically about the Thames crossing. Paragraph 5.58 of that review indicated that there are resource concerns: “There are, however, likely to be gaps such as those relating to construction phase price controls, project specific I know you said that you had confidence in that area, but that report was published just last month. Can I get some clarity? Are you saying that the report is not entirely right and that you are confident that the three aspects it raised will be covered going forward? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> We very much welcome that independent review of the ORR. It is always helpful to have that sort of outside-in look and scrutiny. On what it describes as gaps, the other point that Dr Richard Judge brought out was that we are not building from scratch, so this is about providing incremental capacity. I think he was right to draw out those areas as ones where you would want to make sure that the gaps have been filled by the time you are past Royal Assent, the first licence has been awarded and you are into the start of the first price control, which is a long way from <span id="43" class="column-number" data-column-number="43"></span>today. The point I am making is that, from the discussions I have been having with the Department, I am reasonably confident about being able to resource what I would describe as incremental gaps, rather than starting from a blank sheet.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLabourTristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CA014A61-B97E-4620-9FF6-B1EA760D3D1E}"> </QNum></strong> This question links to the independent review. I questioned the ORR on this. Obviously, you are sitting on the other side of the table, and you are looking to extract as much as you can from an investor perspective. You represent one side of the spectrum, and the regulators are on the other side. There has to be a working partnership between you both. Obviously, the efficiency of a project finance model such as the one for this crossing relies on certainty and predictability for investors, and regulators being there to ensure the stability of the regime. Obviously, we do not have a regulator that manages this at the moment. Where does investor confidence stand regarding the ORR? Do you think investor confidence is there for this model to work going forward? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> I would slightly reject your first statement, if I am honest. As an infrastructure investor, we provide, candidly, the lowest cost private capital that is available across the world. If you are attracting John Laing and people like us, I can guarantee that you are getting the lowest cost of equity capital that you can possibly attract and therefore the risk transfer needs to be accordingly appropriate. I will slightly repeat my opening comments: when we first started interacting with DFT about this project, I was quite nervous about the RAB model. I am not a RAB nerd; there are lots of RAB nerds, and I am not one. RAB can be incredibly complicated, and it can take a huge amount of time to drill down. There is not a regulator. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Am I nervous that that is going to take longer than it should do or could do? Yes, I am, but again, credit to DFT and the Treasury, they seem to be well on track. Maybe the better answer to your question is that we as investors will need absolute certainty—and I mean absolute certainty—about what that regulatory model is, who the regulator is and how that regulation is going to work before we will put in a dollar, a pound, or a euro—whatever currency you like.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLabourTristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{12734FC0-8D04-412C-BBF5-27BA03AAC72D}"> </QNum></strong> I have a question on the ORR. My line of questioning is about whether the regulator is ready. Obviously we had the independent report last month. I challenged on one particular finding of that. Is the ORR ready for this challenge? Is the regulatory landscape in a firm place where we can solicit investor interest next year? Again, speaking to the investor spokesperson today, they said that regulatory certainty was absolutely critical for them. I want to understand the operational capabilities, the engagement between the DFT and the ORR, and whether or not we will have that structure and that robust regulatory regime in place, and how confident you are about that. <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I am confident about that, because that is what the Bill intends to do. It sets it out very clearly. We have heard from the investors that that certainty will be a very attractive opportunity for the long-term investment we are seeking to deliver. There will be a need for some additional capability and capacity in the ORR, but I was very impressed with the evidence we heard today. It is very much on top of this, but there is much more to be done, and the Bill will enable it to do that.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLabourTony Vaughan

    Personal Statement

    With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. Following a complaint to Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme by a former member of my constituency staff, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Independent Expert Panel have found that, on three occasions in February 2025, I breached Parliament’s bullying and harassment policy. I accept those findings in full. At a small gathering to thank my former colleague for her work establishing the constituency office, I initiated a hug. I assumed that she was content to be hugged, but I did not ask, and the hug was unwelcome to her. Later that month, while out of the office, intending to join an online meeting that was not in my diary, I took my former colleague’s phone from her hand without her consent to join that meeting. She immediately challenged me and took the phone back. It was not mine to take. The next day, two calls between my former colleague and me were ended abruptly while I was trying to find the venue for a constituency appointment—one of them deliberately by me, after I entered a live church service. Regrettably, I never explained why these calls had ended, as I ought to have done. As a result of these behaviours, my former colleague was upset and humiliated. My behaviour had a real and continuing impact on her and her family, and I am truly sorry for this. I was the employer of my former colleague. There was an imbalance of power between us, and I was not sufficiently alert to it, as the behaviour code requires. The responsibility for behaving in a way that was mindful of that imbalance was mine, not hers. I also recognise that behaviour like this could well impact on somebody who is vulnerable, whether or not it is known that they are vulnerable. That is why respect and courtesy must come first in every interaction I have with others. Since these events, my approach has changed. I am more alert to the need for sensitivity to those I work with. I have undertaken further training, including one-to-one training. Going forwards, I will be mindful of the need for both courtesy in my dealings with staff, including in times of stress, and for my personal attention when staffing problems arise. I made mistakes, and I breached the policy. I apologise unreservedly to my former colleague and to this House.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLabourTom Rutland

    Public Transport: Nuisance Behaviour

    <Question HRSContentId="{5DEF7B36-C6CE-4A04-9F84-D2CD1D7C0343}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{04FA4FD8-72F1-4A58-8257-ED29B0E3AB2D}">What recent steps she has taken to help tackle nuisance behaviour on public transport.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLabourTom Rutland

    Public Transport: Nuisance Behaviour

    There is nothing more irritating than being sat on a train or a bus and being subjected to someone scrolling through endless videos or blasting music out loud, so I welcome the Department’s action against these headphone dodgers. Can my hon. Friend set out how this policy will be enforced to ensure that we reclaim our public transport from nuisance passengers and restore some tranquillity to our journeys?

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLabourSteve Race

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I welcome yesterday’s announcement of a mayoral strategic authority for the geography of Devon. However, as the Minister is aware, cities that currently have district councils are the drivers of economic growth, jobs growth, house building and much else in their areas, but are currently locked out of sitting as full constituent members of mayoral strategic authorities. As we are looking at potential legislation regarding cities, can the Minister give some commitment to looking at whether cities, in advance of local government reorganisation, could sit as full constituent members of MSAs?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLabourStephanie Peacock

    Ofcom

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again this week, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). I do not think we have faced each other across the Chamber, so it is great to see her here today. The range of issues raised today shows how important Ofcom’s work is to people’s everyday lives, whether that means getting a phone signal, staying connected, having a broadband connection that works, knowing that their children are safer when they pick up a phone or go online, or, of course, having their post delivered. Ofcom’s decisions affect people all across our country. As the UK’s independent regulator for the communication industries, Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promoting competition where appropriate. Ofcom helps to ensure that people can access reliable communication services, that broadcasters meet appropriate standards and, increasingly, that people, particularly children, are protected from online harm. Given that Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been wider or more significant, it is understandable that today’s debate has covered a number of topics, and I will attempt to speak to each of them in turn. I am pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety, and I will relay the issues raised in this debate to him directly. As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, broadcasting is probably what Ofcom is most well known for, and that is where I will begin. Broadcasting regulation has existed in the UK for 100 years. Since its creation in 2003, Ofcom has had the vital role of regulating the UK’s broadcast media, helping to ensure that TV and radio audiences are protected from harmful material. Through legislation, Parliament requires Ofcom to draft and keep up to date the broadcasting code, which sets out clear rules and guidance including the protection of children and ensuring that the broadcast of news remains accurate and impartial. Through the Government’s media Green Paper, we are considering how to ensure that Ofcom continues to have the right powers to protect audiences and regulate TV services into the future. All Ofcom-licensed broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code and are Ofcom-regulated. When it comes to news, that means that news in whatever form is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. <span id="259WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="259WH"></span>When broadcasters may have breached the broadcasting code, we of course expect Ofcom to investigate promptly without fear or favour. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to comment on ongoing cases, but a question was raised about politicians presenting television programmes. Ofcom’s broadcasting code sets out that politicians may not “be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified.” The Government have expressed concerns about the blurring of fact and polemic and about politicians presenting programmes that could reasonably be interpreted as news or current affairs. There is a clear rationale for strengthening these rules. We are currently considering a range of options to tackle this issue and will set out more information and a decision in due course. I will take away the point that a couple of Members made about communication regarding complaints to Ofcom. A number of people gave examples of Members of Parliament writing to Ofcom and not feeling that they got an acceptable letter or communication back. I will certainly take that to the Media Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about prominence measures—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I thought she was going to intervene; I am about to answer some of her questions. Our “Watch this space” Green Paper sets out two distinct prominence regimes to safeguard UK media online. The first is prominence for trustworthy news. In an era of infinite online information, quality journalism is vital to holding power, including the Government, to account. We want social media platforms to make reporting from high-quality news providers easy to discover. This is not about censorship; it is about defending a free, pluralistic press across the political spectrum. We have not finalised the criteria for trustworthy news and will continue to engage with the sector as we develop proposals. The second is prominence for wider public service media content on video sharing platforms. From children’s programmes to culture, that content reflects our national story. Our preference remains for sector-led, voluntary agreements on fair commercial terms. The consultation closed on 31 August. Officials are currently analysing the responses, and no final decisions have been made on the regulators. A number of Members spoke about postal services. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is an independent regulator responsible for postal services. That includes regulating Royal Mail as the UK’s designated universal service provider, and mandates that major parcel companies including Amazon Logistics, DPD, DHL, Evri, Parcelforce and Yodel must have clear complaints procedures, accessible contact channels, defined timelines and trained staff. The Government do not have a role in its regulatory decisions on postal services. The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for too long. The Minister for the Future of Work was in the Chamber earlier this week during a debate on Royal Mail performance —indeed, I think an hon. Member said that there have been three such debates this week. We value Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability for the outcomes it delivers. Business Ministers recently met the regulator, and they agreed that more needs to be done to tackle <span id="260WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="260WH"></span>persistent service issues. Ofcom is currently concluding its investigation into the company’s 2025-26 performance. We will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail to ensure that our constituents receive the service they are entitled to. A number of questions were put to me on additional powers for Ofcom. The Government expect Ofcom to use the full range of its existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal services. The Secretary of State reaffirmed the importance of Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator in an appearance at the Business, Innovation Science and Trade Committee on 20 October. He was clear that the Government would be pragmatically considering any future requests for additional powers where they are needed.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLabourStephanie Peacock

    Ofcom

    The hon. Lady makes an incredibly interesting point, and I will certainly reflect that to the relevant Department. She will appreciate that I cannot be drawn on even the creative policy ideas that she puts to me today, but she has put that on the record, and I will make sure that the relevant Department hears about it. Online safety is one of the defining issues of our time. The internet has changed how we live, learn and connect, often for the better, but there are clear challenges and dangers that come alongside that. I would like to quote the Secretary of State on this issue: “This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have upended society. But what is unique to this moment is that that technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere – so I want to be clear that there is a central role for government in shaping that technology for good.” Through the Online Safety Act, Parliament gave Ofcom the responsibility of delivering that, and it is right that this House asks how it is progressing. The Government have asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and present it to Parliament so that its priorities and outcomes can be properly scrutinised. Additionally, Sir Ian Cheshire, the Ofcom chair, is reviewing Ofcom’s enforcement capability, and we will consider his findings carefully. If more changes are needed, we will not hesitate to act. Ofcom’s role will grow further with our decision to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s—a decision shaped by the more than 116,000 responses to our consultation. Enforcing both the Act and the ban must be Ofcom’s top priority, including robust action against circumvention. The first social media regulations will be laid before Parliament by the end of the year. I am sure that the Media Minister would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further, and particularly the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, who raised a number of points on this. I will ask him to reach out to every Member who has attended the debate, and, if Members would like to, I am sure he would be happy to meet them. Moving on to issues around telecoms, there was a specific question on the closure of the PSTN. That is on track for 31 January 2027. Hon. Members spoke about the difficulties that some of their constituents face in <span id="261WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="261WH"></span>getting a reliable broadband connection, and they are right to raise that. National coverage matters, and I have seen that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s regulatory regime has facilitated significant investment and growth in the fixed telecoms market. As of January 2026, gigabit broadband coverage stands at 88%. Ofcom’s telecoms access review, published in March this year, provides a stable regulatory framework for the coming years, and continues to support competition and investment across the sector. This infrastructure is critical to households and businesses alike and underpins the delivery of essential public services. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised a number of concerning issues in her constituency around connectivity, particularly around rural broadband. I will ask officials to look into the specific points she raised. The Government are committed to ensuring at least 99% gigabit broadband coverage by 2032, including in rural areas.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLabourStephanie Peacock

    Ofcom

    I will reflect my hon. Friend’s second question to the Media Minister, but she is absolutely right that broadband is not just a rural issue. When I was the shadow Media Minister, I did a visit to central London that explained some of the issues around broadband connectivity. We want the whole of the UK to be connected. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of scam calls and texts. I have seen tragic and difficult cases of that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s work to tackle scam calls and fraudulent text messages is an important part of its consumer protection role. It has introduced measures to block calls originating from abroad from using UK mobile numbers and to disrupt scam mobile messages. Those will come into effect in 2027. Alongside the Government’s 2025 telecoms fraud charter and wider fraud strategy, those measures will help to protect consumers. Of course, criminals continue to adapt their tactics, and we expect Ofcom to continue using its powers effectively as the threat evolves. <span id="262WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="262WH"></span>The hon. Lady gave a specific example from the USA; I will raise that with the Media Minister and ask officials to write to her. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke in detail and with great experience about the issue of spectrum. Spectrum policy should not be considered in isolation from the Government’s wider objectives for growth, resilience and national capability. The Government sets the strategic direction for spectrum principally through the statement of strategic priorities, while Ofcom independently carries out its statutory functions. Our approach is clear: spectrum management should support investment, competition and innovation while helping to ensure the connectivity and services that the UK relies on are resilient. We keep both our approach to spectrum and the wider regulatory framework under review to ensure that they remain fit for a rapidly changing communications market. My hon. Friend asked a number of other questions; I will make sure she gets a letter from the Media Minister—he is going to be busy following this debate. It has been a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this important issue. In conclusion, Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been broader or more important. From supporting growth and investment to promoting competition, protecting consumers, strengthening network resilience and implementing online safety regulation, it occupies a central place in the UK’s regulatory landscape. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate and to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for securing it.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    The business for the week commencing 2 November is as follows: Monday 2 November—Continuation of the Budget debate. Tuesday 3 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate. Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Sporting Events Bill [<em>Lords</em>], followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Railways Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November. The business for the week commencing 10 November is as follows: Tuesday 10 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill [<em>Lords</em>]. Wednesday 11 November—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced. Thursday 12 November—General debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a general debate on the Nolan principles. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday 13 November—Private Members’ Bills.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our deepest condolences to the people of Spain in the aftermath of yesterday’s horrendous train crash, taking the lives of 68 people and injuring many others. As he said, I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with all those affected. Last week, we saw some very severe and stormy weather across the UK. I send condolences to the families of those loved ones who lost their lives, and I thank all the emergency service workers who have been working hard to mitigate the effect of the storms. <span id="441" class="column-number" data-column-number="441"></span> I am saddened to hear about the passing of Sue Holt. She was a much respected member of staff in the Interparliamentary Relations Office, and I know the whole House will want to send condolences to her family and friends at this time. Further to the tributes made last week and your words this morning, Mr Speaker, I would like to add my best wishes again to Tom Goldsmith who, after 30 years of outstanding service to the House, is retiring from the office of Clerk of the House today. I would also like to pay tribute to Ceri King who, after 43 years in the civil service and 19 years as Head of Secretariat and Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, is leaving her role this week. Ceri was appointed a lieutenant in the Royal Victorian Order in the 2023 new year honours in recognition of her services to the Privy Council. I have greatly valued her advice and guidance in my role as Lord President of the Council and I wish her well. On an entirely different matter, I congratulate Harry Kane, who this week became the first English player to win the Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen in 2001. As the shadow Leader of the House said, I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending congratulations on that well-deserved win and that they found, as I did, his acceptance speech very moving. Young people looking at Harry Kane will see someone entirely committed not just to the sport, but to family and everything else—he really is a hero to many people and I wish him well. There will be no business questions next week, so I want to mention Remembrance Sunday, which is on 8 November. As we take pause to honour those who gave their lives in defence of our freedoms, let us remember the extraordinary debt that can never fully be repaid. Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. The Chancellor set out a very clear plan yesterday in the Budget that gives families and businesses some breathing space from rising costs and supports Britain’s economic growth, not least in the £100 payment to 20 million households in council tax bands A to D in England. It also provides support for businesses, taking around 70,000 more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses out of business rates altogether. At the same time, the Budget supports the housing market, with measures for first-time buyers and social housing and on cutting unnecessary costs and delays for house builders. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to ending homelessness for good. I have to say that I found the right hon. Gentleman to be uncharacteristically unfair about yesterday’s events. On the question of pre-briefing, in the light of what we have said over a period of time, I was struck and pleased by how little pre-briefing there was about the Budget and how disciplined the Chancellor, his team and everybody else was in ensuring that this House was first to hear the contents of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman mentions household incomes. The Government are not complacent about the challenges we will face. I listen very carefully to what is being said about potential changes in household incomes, but I gently remind him and other Opposition Members that we had 14 years of Conservative government, and people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. <span id="442" class="column-number" data-column-number="442"></span>That is the first time in history that that has happened, so we will not take any lessons from him or anyone else. He will know—because it is true—that this Government face international pressures. There are headwinds that we need to face, and a little more understanding of that would be appreciated. Despite all that, the projection is still that the economy will grow. It will not grow as fast as we want it to grow, which is why the measures in the Budget are there to try to ensure that in getting the foundations right, we can then get on with growth as quickly as possible. We will do all that we can. I also gently point out, without being complacent, that the predictions about growth this year were lower than has turned out to be the case, but we will see what happens, not least in the middle east. It is noticeable that when a number of very credible organisations talk about the state of the economy, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility, the International Monetary Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of the things they pick out is not a lack of political stability, but the fact that the Government have a majority and a Prime Minister with a very clear vision of where he wants to take this country. That is done by ensuring not just that we in this place do everything that we can to boost the economy, but that no regions, towns or cities are left behind. That is why devolution is so important. The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence. We are spending £14 billion more on defence than the previous Administration; during their time in office, they spent the lowest amount on it since the end of the cold war. The Prime Minister set out a very clear timeline yesterday in which he again committed the Government to spending 3% of GDP on defence and said that we will meet our NATO commitments. What happened yesterday was a recommitment to those things, and we are on track to deliver all of them. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about an election. The Prime Minister was very clear in what he said in the last few hours about how he sees the possibility of an election. If the Conservatives are looking for a general election, they should be very careful what they ask for.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    Not only do I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Connor on completing such an extraordinary adventure; I thank him for doing so for such a good cause. Many people who will never meet Connor will benefit from what he has done, but I am sure they will be hugely impressed when they learn of <span id="443" class="column-number" data-column-number="443"></span>his achievements. I wish him every success for the remainder of his adventure and safe travels on his journey home.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I always find the hon. Gentleman’s comments both honest and brave, and admitting that he is a Tottenham Hotspur fan is characteristic of him. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> I understand his frustration and the frustration of others about the postponement of the AI debate, but as he said, the first debate attracted a huge amount of attention, and there were two important statements to put before the House. We try to make sure that the number of statements is balanced, but we have to balance that with ensuring that the House is kept updated. I am committed to finding as much time as possible for the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—who is in his place—will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s desire for a debate. The hon. Gentleman made some relevant wider points about the way we use time in this place, and he will know that the Modernisation Committee is looking at how best we can use our time. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of AI safety; the Budget delivers the Government’s most ambitious AI package yet, investing £700 million to tackle the risks of <span id="444" class="column-number" data-column-number="444"></span>AI. We will put AI centre stage during our G20 presidency, and I expect the House will be given ample time to debate those issues before that happens. At the summit, we will work towards hopefully agreeing a single set of global principles and standards on AI, and the Government are clear that where further work is necessary, we will do it. As for making time for a debate, I have just announced a further three days of debate on the Budget. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the link between AI and growth, and I am sure that with a bit of ingenuity, he or other Members could speak to that issue during that debate.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I join my hon. Friend in condemning the appalling incident in Wakefield and reaffirming that all forms of hatred and division have no place in our society. Attacks like these must never be tolerated; we need to send that message out in a united, clear and loud way from this place. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) for the support that they have provided for their constituents. The Government take this matter very seriously. We will certainly try to find time for a debate at some point in the future about social cohesion and what more can be done, because we are doing a lot.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the hard work he does as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and indeed the rest of the Committee for the work they do. I join him in paying tribute to Sir John Hannam, who was a distinguished Member of this House. We send our condolences to his friends and family. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about future Back-Bench business and about the AI debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) should not underestimate the influence that he has in this place, because he has got half an answer—if not the whole answer—on exactly when it will be. I will look at allocating time. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) knows, I will do my very best to do that. I send my best wishes to the Hindu community for Diwali. As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises very important concerns about social cohesion and faith groups, not just in this country but abroad. I put on the record my thanks to the Hindu community for everything that they do in our local communities and across the country. I will also raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He has raised these matters before. The Government take the treatment of minority communities, and particularly faith communities, very seriously indeed. I will raise it with FCDO colleagues and see whether, at some point, we can get the statement that he seeks.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we should all take pride in the success of the Lionesses. We are committed to supporting every aspect of women’s sport, with Sport England committing £60,000 to support the FA in developing a bespoke women’s football workforce strategy, so I am very concerned to hear of her specific concern. I hope that the FA has heard what she has said here today, but she asks how best she might be able to take this forward. I am happy to facilitate a meeting with Sport Ministers to see if we can get the answer that my hon. Friend wants and take this matter forward.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these matters and the way that announcements are made. I will take away his point, and I will do my very best to make sure that the announcement is made in the appropriate way.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    As ever, my hon. Friend raises an issue of great importance to his constituents, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. I understand that he has a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his diary, and I hope that meeting will address his concerns. If it does not, I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a doughty fighter for his constituents, will raise it once again on the Floor of the House, and we will have to see what else is necessary to move this forward.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    The right hon. Gentleman will know how difficult these decisions can be, and I know the concern that such matters raise in constituencies like his—let us be absolutely clear and honest about that. I will raise his concerns with the Home Secretary, because even where there are difficult decisions, it is important that we take local communities with us and get the right outcome in the end.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for Carn Brea athletics track and for young people in his constituency. He knows that grassroots sports clubs and facilities are at the heart of our local communities, which is why the Government are backing them with a £400 million investment in grassroots sports facilities across the UK. I am happy to help him arrange a meeting with the Minister for Sport—she is going to be quite busy after today’s session.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    The hon. Lady is right to raise these matters on the Floor of the House on behalf of her constituents, because they will be of concern not just to the local educational community, but obviously to the young people and their families. I will take up the matter with the Department and ensure that she gets an answer to her questions.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I want to reassure my hon. Friend that Sir Steve West remains in post as the student support champion and as chair of the taskforce, and he will continue to do so until at least the end of the current academic year. The minutes of the last meeting, held in August this year, will be published shortly, and I hope they will provide him with the update that he reasonably requests.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    The Government are very committed to community transport, and we understand its importance for all sorts of communities, not least rural ones. The hon. Lady may want to take this up as either a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this situation is unacceptable. It is appalling that residents are being forced to rely on temporary measures, despite paying service charges—and with no end in sight in some cases. She is absolutely right to champion her constituents’ urgent demand for the immediate restoration of services, and I hope that her words today have been heard by the developers and the managers. The leasehold Bill is coming down the track, which will hopefully right some of these wrongs, but I will also take up the matter with the Ministers most associated with this area to see if my hon. Friend can get the progress she seeks.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourSir Alan Campbell

    Business of the House

    We recognise that some parents’ experiences of the Child Maintenance Service do not meet the standards expected of it, which is why we are committed to reforming the system. I will assist the hon. Lady in trying to get a meeting with the relevant Minister, so she can raise the case in the context of what we are trying to do generally with the CMS.

    Hansard source