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

5,699 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it. The Conservatives’ borders plan to remove every year 150,000 people who have no right to be here, and to deport all foreign criminals, relies on the Home Office knowing who they are. A legal firewall, as has been proposed, around one of the main routes by which people come to the attention of the authorities would obstruct that. It would also invite abuse. The Committee has heard how modern slavery referrals have been made late in the process, after detention and removal directions, in order to delay removal. New clause 15 would make a referral not just a source of delay but a shield from enforcement altogether. Genuine victims deserve protection, and the referral process exists to provide it. However, being referred should not make someone invisible to the immigration system. We fear that the new clause would facilitate <span id="504" class="column-number" data-column-number="504"></span>that. What proportion of referrals in the past year were made after the person had been detained or served with removal directions?

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 16 would require the Government to set a deadline and a road map for implementing their own immigration White Paper of May 2025, including the rules on settlement—that has come up in previous sittings of this Committee. Unusually—I do not say this very often—I find myself with some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats in relation to this particular clause. I emphasise that I will not say that too often. The White Paper promised earned settlement and a 10-year route, but by my calculation we are 17 months on and only one element—a higher English requirement—has been pursued. It is worth noting that the Government’s weakening of that testing requirement will render it practically pointless. In March, the Home Secretary said that she would change the law in the autumn. On Thursday, the Minister told the Committee that the Government’s approach to settlement is “currently undergoing a lot of discussion”.<span id="vol_col338" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="338" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="518D7475-F5E1-495D-84F4-12471A7EB7B7"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>22 October 2026; c. 338.]</span> We heard earlier a reference to the “media frenzy”. That is not delivery. Our new clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period into law today. Our borders plan goes further still, but whatever our differences on the content, the public are entitled to know when the Government’s promises will be kept. I ask the Minister again: when will the earned settlement rules be laid before Parliament?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 18 would require the Government to exercise the break clause in the asylum accommodation contract as soon as reasonably practicable. As we just heard, the public’s anger about hotels and their costs is entirely justified; £2.1 billion was spent on hotels in 2024-25 alone. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made the case for triggering the break clause, but breaking the contract does not by itself reduce the number of people who need accommodating. Demand must be reduced at source. Basically, fewer people in the system would mean fewer beds needed. I know that the Government are planning to reduce dependency on hotels, but I ask the Minister: how many hotels are in use today? How many people are in them, and what is the daily cost? When will the last one close? Have the Government assessed the cost of exercising the break clause under new clause 18?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 19 would create what is sometimes called, as the hon. Member just called it, a humanitarian travel permit: a free visa with at least six months’ leave for anyone, anywhere in the world, who intends to claim asylum in the UK and has a realistic prospect of success. That would potentially open up access a huge number of claimants and we oppose it. The new clause would create an uncapped route to come here to claim asylum with no limit on the numbers and no fee. The judgment of a “realistic prospect of success” would itself generate applications, reviews and litigation. Safe and legal routes should be decided by Parliament, capped, and targeted at those we choose to help. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will not introduce such a scheme.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   The new clause would require legislation within six months to secure full compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and we oppose it. The shadow Attorney General conducted a review for our party and concluded that withdrawing from the trafficking convention and amending the Modern Slavery Act would be prudent, because modern slavery claims—sometimes genuine, but too often not—have become one of the main ways of delaying removal and deportation, including of foreign criminals.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   Part 5 of the Bill, which we support, tries to correct some of the ways the system has been stretched. New clause 21 would undo that by entrenching the convention more deeply into our domestic laws. It would make it harder, not easier, to remove people with no right to be here.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   Again, I will attempt to be brief. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, new clause 23 would build a legal firewall so that personal information about victims, witnesses and people who report crime cannot be used for immigration purposes. To achieve our ambitions of removing 150,000 people a year who have no right to be here, the Home Office needs to know who and where they are. The police are one of the most important sources of that information. A blanket firewall, as has been described, would cut it off and apply whoever the person is and whatever their history.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart.<span id="477" class="column-number" data-column-number="477"></span> I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea. I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities. The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that “A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration” should be “taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.” On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have “joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services” to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says: “The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”. Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms. The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were “designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”, and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”<em> </em>made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for <span id="478" class="column-number" data-column-number="478"></span>purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do. The current work and remit of the Home Office “covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”. I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that “the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.” Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future. Despite repeated attempts at reform, “the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,” with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes: “The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”. It says: “The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”. I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

   The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work. As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim. It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other.<span id="487" class="column-number" data-column-number="487"></span> More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape. The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees. Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high. Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work. Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening. In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in <span id="488" class="column-number" data-column-number="488"></span>limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work. Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety. In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    Of course! New Clause 11 Refugee family reunion “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for refugee family reunion in accordance with this section. (2) Any changes to the immigration rules included in any statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1) must come into effect after 21 days. (3) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.<span id="491" class="column-number" data-column-number="491"></span> (4) A statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. (5) In this section— the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971; ‘refugee status’ and ‘humanitarian protection’ have the same meaning as in the immigration rules; ‘family members’ include— (a) a person's parent, including an adoptive parent; (b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; (c) a person's child, including an adopted child, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; (d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to— (i) the importance of maintaining family unity, (ii) the best interests of a child, read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (iii) physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person, (iv) risks to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; ‘adopted’ and ‘adoptive’ refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules.” —<em>(Tom Gordon.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{98E9921B-46EB-4093-AA99-CEDD97273F8F}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{4A775404-F49A-4FB3-A897-08889346DC25}"></QuestionText>I think it is fair to say that there is disappointment on both sides of the House, following Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway’s open-access application being rejected because of concerns about capacity and reliability on the west coast main line. Is the Secretary of State confident that nationalising Avanti will result in the punctuality improvements and extra pathways needed to accommodate new services, which I hope can result in WSMR stopping at Aldridge railway station?</Question>

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding. May I invite the Minister to <span id="434" class="column-number" data-column-number="434"></span>Isham, where I would give him a warm welcome? It is only when people see it for themselves that they can understand how desperately we need this bypass.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Stuart Andrew

    Business of the House

    We are blessed with charities up and down the country doing amazing work. I was pleased to host a dinner in Parliament to launch a new charity that is based in Northamptonshire in my constituency. It is called Living Like Linda, inspired by <span id="451" class="column-number" data-column-number="451"></span>the incredible Linda Williamson, who now helps other people going through long-term chemotherapy to enjoy days out and social experiences, allowing them to forget about their treatment for a few hours. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to both Linda and her husband Andy for the amazing work that they have done, as well as to all other charities, up and down the country, that help people who need it most?

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Passenger Rail Services

    May I constructively suggest a way in which the Secretary of State could help three Cabinet colleagues—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, who is building a major reservoir in my constituency; the Housing Secretary, who has big plans within Cambridgeshire; and the Chancellor, who often talks about the Oxford-Cambridge arc? Securing a light rail link to the reservoir will shape the public response to it, but the Department for Transport currently does not seem to be involved at all with the other Departments. I do not expect her to be familiar with the scheme—it is primarily for one of her colleagues—but could she write to me setting out what her Department might do to help those other Departments deliver on their aims?

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House raise with the Home Secretary the very real concerns of residents in Fenland about the proposed asylum centre in Leverington? The area was excluded by the previous Conservative Government as unsuitable for such accommodation. The council, on the basis of legal advice, has raised a number of objections, and the Home Office has missed its own deadline to give a decision by 16 October. The site is not suitable for the proposed asylum centre, and I would be grateful if he could raise that point with the Home Secretary.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Local Government Reorganisation

    After more than two years, the Minister has come to the Chamber today to say that all options are still on the table. He cannot say what the timeline is for Cambridgeshire, yet he also said from the Dispatch Box that his priority is getting resources to the frontline. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State, who is in her place, has decided to duck making this statement and has passed it to the Minister, but will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)? What has been the total cost to local authorities and the Government of this process so far, given that we have arrived at a situation today where all options are on the table?

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    As the Defence Secretary is talking about defence spending, could I just point him to paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 on page 31 of the Red Book? I am sure that one of his Treasury colleagues will have a copy. He will see that £10.3 billion of that spending is funded by reprioritisation, alongside £4.7 billion, £3 billion of which is from capital cuts elsewhere and £1.7 billion from the reserve. He will, of course, get the £1.7 billion from the reserve, but has he been told by the Treasury where that £3 billion of capital savings is coming from? How much of it, if any, is coming from his Department? Can he assure the House that the Government are on track on the more than £10 billion of efficiencies, given that the Institute for Government and many others say that it is highly unlikely to be delivered?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    The Defence Secretary opened today’s debate by praising the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor. That may come as a surprise to them both, given that earlier this year the Defence Secretary resigned from the Government, saying in his resignation letter that he could not serve alongside them because of the lack of direction and the drift. It is less than a year since Labour Members cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Budget from the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and it is striking how much continuity there is today with measures that they cheered yesterday, despite being so unhappy with the previous Chancellor. To illustrate that, I will highlight certain phrases and words we hear from Labour Members on a regular basis, starting with perhaps the most frequent, which is the need to have no austerity. An “end to austerity” is a constant refrain—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I see those on the Front Bench nodding. They might be surprised to see that the OBR report states on pages 21 and 115 that there is an £11 billion shortfall from the year after next for all Departments, other than protected Departments such as Health. The Government have already said that they want to commit to Defence. I do not think the party that stands saying “24 hours to save the NHS” will cut funding to the health service going into an election, but perhaps that is its policy. If not, according to the OBR, Labour will be cutting funding for unprotected Departments by 2.6% in those final three years. There is a paradox about that: only last week, the Defence Secretary came to the House to say that there is urgency in national resilience, yet Departments like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which would deliver that national resilience, will be the same unprotected ones facing cuts, so Labour Members are cheering a Budget in which there is austerity baked in—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> They shake their heads. Labour Members may have been told by the Labour Whips, “Do not worry—the spending review will fix that”, but having run a spending review, I know that a spending review allocates the funds but does not decide on the quantum. They may have been told, “Do not worry, there will be a election”—maybe there will—but yesterday the Prime Minister was saying the opposite. Either they <span id="513" class="column-number" data-column-number="513"></span>believe a Budget that has austerity baked in, they think the spending review will fix it, or they do not believe the Prime Minister and think an election will avoid the issue entirely. But it is an odd position for Members who come to the Chamber talking about an end to austerity to then be cheering a Budget where that austerity is in the Red Book numbers. The second paradox is that Labour Members talk about breathing space. There are policy areas that show continuity with last year’s Budget: the 2p on property income tax is a repeat of last year’s 2p increase—4p in all—with both measures starting at the same time, in April next year. The OBR makes it clear that that will lead to fewer people entering the rental market, fewer landlords and prices going up. The Budget includes a bank tax, again repeating a trick of the former Chancellor, who thought, “If I tax employers with national insurance, it will not go through into a jobs’ tax”, so we have a bank tax on the basis that that will be more palatable. But do not take my word for it: <em>The Times</em> leader on 16 October said it will be a tax on growth, and one of Labour’s favourite advisers, Lord O’Neill, said it will “hobble” growth.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    Of course it will be bearable for the chief executive because he will not take it from his bonus—he will take it by adding it to the mortgage rates and the loan rates that he charges the hon. Member’s constituents. Does the hon. Member honestly believe that the bankers will take that tax from their own bonuses, or does he think they will pass it on to constituents and consumers? That is exactly what <em>The Times</em>, Lord O'Neill and many others have commented: it is a displaced cost that adds to the constraints on businesses. This Government talk about wanting growth in every postcode, but making it harder for businesses to access capital will make it harder for them to expand. As with the measures imposed on landlords, this approach continues that taken by the previous Government. There is a lack of consistency in the proposals, even measured against those announced in the Labour conference last month. As the Minister pointed out, at the conference the Chancellor talked about how he was aghast at the idea of debt. Well, the OBR document makes it clear that the Budget measures are adding £8 billion of debt this year alone, on top of the £11 billion of additional debt that flows from interest rates and inflation. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Again, a Government who say that they want to reduce debt have a Budget that is adding to debt in a way that will further constrain the growth in every postcode. Unfortunately I have run out of time, but I suspect that in a few months’ time, as with the last Budget that Labour Members cheered, once the detail becomes more known and they see how it goes against many of the equities that they say that they stand for, we will find this Budget disowned in exactly the same way as the last one.<span id="514" class="column-number" data-column-number="514"></span>

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Economic Secretary has just said at the Dispatch Box that the welfare bill will come down. The BBC has been reporting, following the Chancellor saying the same thing this morning, that No. 10 and the Treasury have informed the media that that is not the case, and the welfare bill will not be coming down. How do we ensure that the House gets the true position, because it is rather hard to keep up when the message keeps changing?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Active Travel

    May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, relating to the sad loss of Sue Holt? During my time as the leader of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I found Sue to be always there, always cheerful and always helpful, as did the whole of the delegation that I was privileged to lead. We shall miss her dreadfully. Let me also support your other remarks, Mr Speaker. During my time as an acting Deputy Speaker, I leaned very heavily on the wise advice of Tom Goldsmith. I wish him every happiness in whatever he chooses to do next. I am sure the whole House will associate itself with the support for active travel in general and for cycling in particular, but there is a downside. The growth in the number of cyclists has led to a clear growth in the number of cycling offences, with cyclists on pavements, crashing through red traffic lights and cycling at night without any lights at all. Does the Minister have any information about prosecutions relating to those offences?

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Business of the House

    The figures underpinning the business case for National Grid’s ludicrously environmentally damaging Sea Link project have been shown to have been fiddled together in cloud cuckoo land. The Energy Secretary is due to issue her determination on the planning inspector’s inquiry into that scheme imminently. Will the Leader of the House, with his usual courtesy, seek to ensure that that announcement is made on the Floor of the House, and not slipped out in a written answer on a non-sitting Friday?

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Minister is a genial sort of fellow, and I want to believe him when he says that he wants to proceed by consensus. Will he accept that there is no consensus at all on splitting the New Forest and putting the Waterside under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton? Well over 30,000 people signed the petition to keep the forest together, and it was handed in at Downing Street on the very day that the Government rightly withdrew the plan for Hampshire.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Budget Resolutions

    The Defence Secretary, who opened the debate for the Government, is undoubtedly a versatile and an entertaining politician, but he did himself a little less than full justice in being so casually dismissive of the remarks made by the Labour Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who, for the record, I have found to be thoughtful, knowledgeable and patriotic. He deserves to be listened to, just as his predecessors in the role, including me, were listened to with, I believe, respect by Conservative Governments, even when we were criticising them. Criticise them we did. As long ago as June 2018, the Defence Committee published a report entitled “Beyond 2 per cent”—that is HC 818, for those nerds interested in looking it up—which called for a level of defence expenditure approaching the figure of 3% of GDP, which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-1990s. The mid-1990s were six years or so after the fall of the Berlin wall, and when Government Members keep saying, as the Chancellor said yesterday and as the Defence Secretary repeatedly said today, although he did not take interventions on it, that they are proud to be part of a Government who are behind the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the question we need to ask is this: how much do they think this country spent on defence during the cold war? When the cold war was over, the threat diminished. The threat is now high—as high as it ever was during the cold war. During the 1980s, as I have said many times, we spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP, calculated by today’s method of calculation, on defence. In June 2025, the Hague summit declaration called for NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, consisting of 3.5% on core expenditure and 1.5% on wider defence-related items. We are already beginning to hear how the 3.5%, or even the 3%, will be made up by creative accounting. Let us bear in mind that 3.5% is to be on core defence. The creative accounting elements, if they are lucky, may deserve to be included in the 5%, but that is it.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Six weeks ago, the Government announced that they were scrapping the local government reform proposals for Essex and going back to the drawing board. That announcement created yet more uncertainty and further paralysed decision making, yet the Minister has not even mentioned Essex, and he has provided no additional clarity whatsoever. How can he expect elections to go ahead in 2028, when we will not even know what authorities the candidates will be elected to until next year?

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Budget Resolutions

    Before I turn to the Budget, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue Holt, whose death Mr Speaker announced to the House this morning. I am a member and former leader of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and I worked with Sue over quite a long period. She was always immensely cheerful and efficient, and her death came as a real shock to us all. I send my condolences. At least there is one part of the Budget that I welcome: the continuing support being given by this Government to Ukraine. That was initiated under the last Government —indeed, over 10 years ago, long before the full-scale invasion by Russia—and we have continued to maintain it. It is a cross-party matter, so that support is very welcome. One of the reasons it is so important that we support Ukraine is that Ukraine is our frontline, and the threat to Ukraine is not just a threat to that country; it is a threat to all of us. That is why it is essential that we increase our defence expenditure now. The Chancellor has recommitted to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, but that is still some way off, and we have heard from the Secretary of State for Defence about the immediacy of the threat. It is a matter of some concern that while we are still debating how we will get to 3%, allies such as Denmark, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Norway and Poland are already exceeding that level and planning to spend more. Perhaps one of the reasons we have not yet been able to explain how we will meet the target is that the essential measures to fund it—in other words, addressing the welfare budget—have again been ducked by this Government. We await the outcome of the reviews by the Minister and Alan Milburn, but we have reached a position in which 6.7 million people are now claiming out-of-work benefits. That is creating a situation that is not just unaffordable; it is actually immoral that so many people of working age are out of work and living on benefits. The situation in this country is that all the economic signals for the long term are heading in the wrong direction. Borrowing is going up. Our national debt already stands at £3 trillion and is scheduled to increase further. Tax levels are the highest in our history. The Chancellor claims that he wants to cut regulation, but we have heard today from the OBR that the Employment Rights Act 2025 will result in unemployment standing at over 5% next year. That situation destroys incentives to work, drives away investment and causes entrepreneurs to leave the country. It is an unsustainable situation, yet nothing in this Budget does anything to give confidence that those things will be reversed. I will quickly refer to a couple of measures. In the Prime Minister’s first statement to the House, I raised the situation on our high streets, where so many businesses have been hit by not just the increase in business rates, but the increases in national insurance contributions, energy costs and the minimum wage. Although the measure to increase the threshold for business relief is of some small help, it is nothing like sufficient to help those businesses that are struggling to survive. I regret that there was no mention of VAT, a cut to which UKHospitality has identified as a critical measure that could help, because such businesses have to compete with those in countries such as France, Spain and Italy, which levy rates that are half of those here.<span id="519" class="column-number" data-column-number="519"></span> I will quickly mention hair salons, which the Chancellor talked about. They often face unfair competition from identical-looking salons next door, where the chairs are rented out and the staff class themselves as self-employed. That is depriving the Treasury of proper revenue while also creating unfair competition. I hope that is something that the Treasury will listen to. I am sorry that the gambling sector is yet again being used as a cash cow, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. By increasing the tax on gambling yet again, the effect will hit our high streets even harder, because a lot of betting shops are going to be driven out of business.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Budget Resolutions

    I am extremely grateful to my constituency neighbour for making an excellent point—and for giving me another minute. He is absolutely right that President Zelensky once again has spoken words for the Government to listen to, if only they would. It is absolutely right that we should increase our support for and expenditure on defence. Finally, my right hon. Friend and I both represent relatively rural constituencies, and I regret that the Budget made no mention of the harm being done to the agriculture sector through the family farming tax, nor did it provide any help to those constituents—I have many, and I know he does as well—who are off the grid and rely on heating oil. They will not benefit from the abolition of the standing charges, yet they have faced huge increases. Perhaps the only thing to celebrate in this Budget is the fact that the Chancellor did not listen to his Back Benchers who wanted him to go even further, with a wealth tax, a mansion tax and an increase in capital gains tax; long may it continue that he listens to us, not to them.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Local Government Reorganisation

    May I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and his announcement that Gloucestershire will be one unitary authority? That will produce better administration and better value for money. However, will he explain to my constituents why we are having an election next May on the existing councils, which will gradually lose power as we move toward the following election the next year? Why can we not simply have an election next May on the shadow unitary authority?

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Budget Resolutions

    There is a slight irony in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He wants to cut VAT on pubs, yet he wants to get closer to the European Union, which would not allow us to cut VAT in our own country. Is there not a slight contradiction there?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Budget Resolutions

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important Budget debate. I listened to the Defence Secretary, and thought he absolutely embedded his comedic skills. Some of what he was saying would have been better said on “Have I Got News for You” than in this Chamber. This Budget was a tragic lost opportunity to fix the fundamentals of the economy. Our debt is at a record level. The tragedy is that we are paying a higher interest rate than Greece on that debt—5.31%. That will add additional interest of £14 billion, just on that debt. If the amount that we are paying to service that debt were a Department, it would be the third largest. The budget for the Department for Work and Pensions is around £344 billion. That does not even cover the amount of income tax we raise in this country in total, which is £330 billion. In other words, income tax does not pay all our DWP bills. The second highest-spending Department has a budget of £226 billion. I welcome the Chancellor saying that he will meet his fiscal rules by the end of this Parliament, but that involves the national debt falling by the end of the Parliament. If I were a betting man, I would doubt very much that he will meet that rule. One of the saddest things about our economy is that inflation is going up. Before Labour Members start to scoff at that, it is one of the most important measures of the lot, because it affects everything; it affects all our cost of living. Everything from our fuel costs to our energy and mortgage costs are affected by inflation, so the one thing we ought to be doing is trying to get the rate of inflation down. One of the saddest things about inflation is that my constituents, many of whom live off the gas grid, have to pay for heating oil, which has gone up by 75% in the last year. Imagine that for someone on benefits. In this Budget, they are getting very little help with meeting those costs.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Budget Resolutions

    My hon. Friend has made his point well. Let us hope that is read into the record. Currently, 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education or training. We should be focusing relentlessly on creating opportunities for young people and supporting businesses that employ them. Sadly, this Budget does not do that. When sickness benefits pay more than the minimum wage, what is the incentive to work? Sectors such as tourism and hospitality that provide opportunities in every part of the country and in every constituency, <span id="500" class="column-number" data-column-number="500"></span>but especially in rural areas, face significant economic pressure, and nationally, at least one pub is closing a week. The rates relief offered by the Chancellor in this Budget may help by a minuscule amount, but that is unfortunately offset by the increase in the minimum wage, and the VAT costs that those businesses face. I want to turn to the kernel of what the Defence Secretary was saying, and to defence. It was solemnly promised by this Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister that we would not only quickly get to spending 2.7% of GDP on defence, but would have a path to 3%. There is no path to 3%. The only path I can see is that departmental budgets will be cut, and it has not yet been tied down what services will be cut to pay for that 2.3% real cut in Departments. There was no clarity on this in the Budget yesterday. Surely if the Labour party and the Government keep boasting that they will go to 3%, the least they owe the British people is a path to get there—and it is not only the 3%, but the 3.5% in the following Parliament, which is a great deal of money. Importantly, as General Sir Richard Barrons said recently, we do not own the clock. In other words, we do not know when our adversaries are likely to launch some form of attack on us, and we know that the Ministry of Defence is not able to place the orders it needs. To take the bigger equipment, when will the F-35s come? The Defence Secretary shakes his head. They are still in the queue; they cannot be manufactured for us because we have not given a solid commitment on when we want them. Those delays in procurement particularly affect some of our smaller defence companies, because they do not have the cash flow. I mentioned artificial intelligence in an intervention yesterday. One of the most important things the Chancellor could have done for this country yesterday was provide a proper path to how every single Department will operate digital and AI more effectively, so that he could increase productivity. The machinery of government changes that the Government have undertaken in the last year do not give the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, any confidence that the Government have a real policy on digital and AI, and how they will produce mechanisms for using this technology properly. A year ago, digital policy was in the Cabinet Office. It was then transferred to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but DSIT was abolished. Now it is in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—the Department which historically has been used to dealing with sport and culture, not the important matter of AI. Without this priority, it is difficult to see how the Government will make this digital policy work. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), as I said in an intervention yesterday, gave in his Budget a significant sum of £3 billion to the Department of Health and Social Care—the Defence Secretary’s former Department—to transform their digital equipment, that was the start of what we should have been doing for every single Department. I do not know how the Government will meet their efficiency targets unless they start to introduce proper AI and get rid of some of our legacy equipment, which, as the Defence Secretary knows only too well, is more vulnerable to cyber-attacks. I turn to local government reform. I was pleased by the announcement this morning that Gloucestershire will be one unitary authority—that is good news—but <span id="501" class="column-number" data-column-number="501"></span>our local authority will only get any increase in finances if we can come up with devolution. There was no link to how Gloucestershire will move from local government reorganisation into a strategy authority, and we need to have that. Otherwise, we will not be able to take advantage of some of those financial benefits. On the civil service pension scheme, there is a good news story for which I praise the Government. We have had five hearings on the Public Accounts Committee into the dreadful mess that Capita has left that scheme in—five hearings where every single deadline has been missed. That is not good enough for the poor 1.7 million members of that scheme. The Government have done a good thing. Last week, I wrote to the Pensions Minister about a problem: if Capita did not pay out a lump sum within two years, scheme members would be taxed on that sum at the highest rate. The Minister met me fairly quickly, I raised it on the Floor of the House on Monday and—bingo!—I got a letter yesterday saying that the law was going to be changed in the Budget. I pay tribute to the Government and the Pensions Minister for that quick action. That was the just thing to do. Those pension scheme members will not have to keep worrying about whether they will get their full lump sum. In conclusion, this is sadly a wasted opportunity, and we look forward to future Budgets actually giving us a path to a better economic future. One of the economic forecasts we had in the Budget yesterday was growth of 1.2%, which all the Government and the Chancellor are crowing about, but historically 1.2% is not enough to keep spending at the rate the Government are. We need more measures to help business and a proper taxation policy, and then this country will start to grow.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Were he to consult a map, the Minister would understand that the Creator’s purpose in placing the estuary of the Test was to prevent, for government purposes, the eastern part of the New Forest from being treated as a suburb of Southampton.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I do not think that the Minister mentioned Essex in his statement, but he made a point about funding which I think is much appreciated—that areas have incurred costs in good faith. Does that apply to Essex? On the basis of £450,000 per new unitary previously announced, we would be due £2.25 million for the inconvenience and disruption to local government in Essex.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Shivani Raja

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{209BFCB0-04C5-453B-BF8C-F42833901873}"> </QNum></strong> It has been really clear today that cost control is a crucial element in the success of this project. Should there be safeguards for motorists within the regulatory framework where, for example, unexpected charges arise or costs are excessive? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> At the heart of the regulator’s responsibilities would be furthering the interests of current and future users. Those are exactly the kind of considerations that would be at the heart of how you approach the regulation, how you set up the instruments—I am referring specifically to the licence—and how you then hold the company to account against that licence. For the first control period, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the licence would be awarded by the Department, so the particular tolling structure and the level of tolls would be set through that competition for the first licence. Thereafter, the way that the ORR operates is that the code that the ORR would be responsible for creating on the approach to tolling arrangements will clearly be important once you are past that first point. My feeling is that the arrangements necessary to provide protections to end users around, for example, tolling and toll shocks and so on feel about right to me in the enabling legislation. What is really important is what goes into the licence and what we put into the code, and then how the company responds. I hope there will be a virtuous circle, in which there is a clear signal of what is expected, we hold the company to account, it delivers and implements it, and we then take the feedback from the market. I do not know if you were anticipating a different concern, but I will pause there in case I have not answered your question.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Shivani Raja

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    No, that is fine. Do you have anything to add, Mr Palmer? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> I think it is beyond my scope—National Highways is here as an operator and a constructor. I think Will has probably answered the question properly.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sarah Bool

    Business of the House

    Transport is a really pressing issue in rural areas such as South Northamptonshire, and the closure of the Ability bus service earlier this year has left many of my residents isolated. We need to do so much more, so could we have a debate in Government time on securing greater support for community transport?

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sarah Bool

    Budget Resolutions

    The Chancellor started his remarks yesterday by praising the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). He said: “She brought fiscal discipline to this country.” He also said: “She took the decisions required to boost investment”.<span id="vol792_col301" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="301" data-volume-number="792" data-external-id="43ED9E3F-577E-4A82-8D03-0485B75600D6">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 301]</span>— apparently! However, what he omitted is actually more telling. The previous Chancellor increased taxes on business, crippled farmers with taxes, and ballooned the welfare bill and borrowing. If that fiscal discipline was so great, perhaps she might have been delivering the Budget yesterday. The Chancellor also talked about giving Britain some “breathing space” on the cost of living and the cost of business. If this is breathing space, he needs to be very careful of a misrepresentation—the Budget was a faulty inhaler at best. I am particularly concerned by some of the devolution measures in the Budget. There was a lot of discussion about devolution, but Northamptonshire is not being considered at the moment, and we are battling for any provisions around mayors. We are battling to be considered as part of a unit of six, but the Government are looking at Bedford, Luton and Milton Keynes. When so many decisions will apparently be devolved to these authorities, it is important that Northamptonshire has its right place in the discussions. I hope that we can continue to make the case for Northamptonshire to be part of that unit. The defence of the realm is absolutely essential, and we all know how vital it is that we get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, but some of the Defence Secretary’s comments earlier were incredibly shocking. Conservative Members asking detailed questions about how we will achieve that spending should not be dismissed or joked about. It is absolutely right that this Chamber is the place where those questions are answered, so I ask that the Secretary of State reconsiders his approach the next time that the Opposition ask such questions. When the Chancellor was the Secretary of State for Defence, he resigned for exactly the reason that we could not necessarily reach that 3%. All that was mentioned yesterday was a target. I remind everyone that a target is defined as something that we aim for; we need a full-on commitment here and now. The Budget was given a title that mentions “Fresh Hope for the Future” but this is not about hope for the future; this is about the Government delivering. Hope, as they say, is a little like a rocking chair: it gives us something to do, but it gets us absolutely nowhere. Actions speak much louder than words.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Robbie Moore

    Business of the House

    Across Keighley and Ilkley, we constantly see large discarded nitrous oxide canisters, many of them on the side of the road. They are clearly being used illegally by drivers and others. This creates major concerns about road safety, as well as littering, and it is left to organisations such as Litter Free Ilkley to pick the canisters up. There is a clear link to safety and a safety threat from driving under the influence of nitrous oxide, but detection in the body is still difficult for police. May we have a debate in Government time to address that, and on bringing out much stricter controls on the purchase of canisters?

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Rebecca Paul

    Ofcom

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing today’s debate. This is a really important topic, and it is clear how passionate she is about it. I really enjoyed her speech and I would love to see her on GB News, creating some of the balance that she was talking about. In fact, a number of Members here would contribute to that important balance, so I look forward to seeing them all on there at some point. Before I get into some of the detail that has been raised today in compelling contributions, it is important to recognise Ofcom’s extraordinarily broad remit. From broadcasting and telecommunications to postal services and online safety, it regulates communication services that impact British consumers every day. Independent regulation in all those spheres is important. It is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether <span id="256WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="256WH"></span>Ofcom is delivering on its statutory duties and is well placed to take on the additional responsibilities allocated to it, particularly given how important they are. Across Ofcom’s considerable remit, we often hear the same concerns: the regulator is too slow to act, too reluctant to intervene and too often unable to secure meaningful improvements. We have heard that across the board today. Broadcasting is the area of regulation that Ofcom is best known for. Ofcom’s broadcasting code requires that news be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality, and significant mistakes should normally be acknowledged and corrected promptly. It also makes it clear that, save in exceptional circumstances, politicians must not act as newsreaders, interviewers or reporters in news programmes. Those are important safeguards. The public should be able to trust that the news on their screens is being reported accurately and without editorial bias. That said, there is a really important nuance: “due impartiality” was never intended to mean the rigid allocation of equal airtime for every point of view. Ofcom’s rules recognise different programme formats and the importance of context. The exchange of different opinions and political views is both legitimate and healthy when done in line with the code. But rather unsurprisingly, Ofcom finds itself walking a fine line. The regulator must be robust when rules are broken, but without becoming so restrictive that broadcasters shy away from difficult subjects or controversial opinions, and those rules must always be applied consistently, regardless of a broadcaster’s political outlook. The perception that the rules are enforced inconsistently can be as damaging to public confidence as a lack of enforcement. Ofcom says that it closed nearly 66,000 broadcasting complaints last year and found breaches in 14 cases, following 25 investigations. Those figures demonstrate activity, but tell us much less about whether the final decisions were fair or effective. Interestingly, I can find no record of Ofcom issuing fines where politicians have been involved in reading the news, despite the code’s clear position on that and some high-profile examples. I therefore ask the Minister, bearing in mind the regulator’s operational independence, whether the Government are satisfied with its regulatory performance in respect of broadcast. Are they satisfied that Ofcom, in performing its duties, strikes the right balance between impartiality, accuracy and freedom of expression? I turn now to online safety. Ofcom’s responsibilities are growing rapidly, particularly when it comes to protecting children from online harms. That is an immensely important area. We will all be aware that Ofcom has reported under section 63 of the Online Safety Act 2023 that it found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful content during the first nine months after the new children’s safety duties took effect. This is an early measure, and we know that some platforms have introduced stronger age checks since; none the less, that initial report is disappointing and concerning. I hope the Minister will update us today on her view on the recommendations in the report and what further actions the Government are considering, if any. Enforcement in the online sphere can be incredibly challenging. Giving evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this month, Ofcom’s <span id="257WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="257WH"></span>chief executive said that only two out of 11 online safety fines had been paid. In the case of 4chan, it was fined £520,000 in March for breaches, including failing to introduce effective age checks to stop children accessing pornography. Its US lawyer responded to demands for payment with an image of an AI-generated hamster. Unfortunately, that example shows how difficult it can be to enforce against overseas entities, putting Ofcom in an extremely difficult position. I would be grateful if the Minister gave her views on the type of enforcement action that should be taken in these difficult cases, such as last-resort business disruption powers, and whether she would like to see those powers used more. Let me turn to social media restrictions for under-16s, an area where the Government have done the right thing, albeit belatedly and following huge pressure from the Opposition and the public. Ofcom is expected to oversee compliance here and has acknowledged the challenges posed by circumvention, including through VPNs, and told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it will need additional resources for the task. I hope the Minister can respond to that directly by outlining what assessment the Government have made of Ofcom’s staffing, technical expertise and current enforcement capacity. What lessons are being learned from Ofcom’s work on existing online safety duties, and what measurable outcomes will the House be able to refer to in 12 months from now to ultimately judge how effectively Ofcom has discharged this important new function? I mentioned Ofcom’s extremely broad remit at the outset, and it would be entirely remiss of me, in my capacity as the Member for Reigate, not to acknowledge its responsibility as the regulator for postal deliveries. Royal Mail is ultimately responsible for running its network, but it is painfully clear to my constituents that repeated fines from Ofcom have done very little to secure the reliable service that we should all expect. I recall a Government Member decrying Ofcom as “utterly toothless” on postal services when we considered this issue earlier in the year. He is certainly not alone in taking that view, as we have heard many times over in Members’ contributions today. When the Minister speaks, I hope we will hear about how we can ensure that sanctions from Ofcom meaningfully translate into more letters arriving on time. Otherwise, really, what is the point? Before I finish, I want to draw attention to the Public Accounts Committee report of 11 September, which identified the critical role that regulators such as Ofcom play in ensuring that vulnerable customers and those struggling financially are better supported. Its report specifically recommends that regulators need to do more to ensure take-up of discounted social tariffs and other support for consumers on lower incomes. Fewer than 9% of eligible broadband customers are on social tariffs and only a third of customers are aware that they even exist. More urgency from Ofcom could create scope for a more joined-up approach that would avoid customers in vulnerable circumstances having to repeat personal information to multiple service providers. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the recommendations in that report.<span id="258WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="258WH"></span> That final point brings me back to the purpose of today’s debate. Whether it is ensuring impartial news, children’s safety online, reliable postal deliveries or affordable broadband, Ofcom’s effectiveness has real consequences for the people we represent. Its operational independence is important, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability. As we continue to expand the regulator’s responsibilities, I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government can measure its success and what more can be done to ensure that Ofcom delivers the improvements that the public rightly expect.

    Hansard source