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

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

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex McIntyre

   Business of the House

   Mr Speaker, if you or the Leader of the House would like to visit my constituency, first, you would be very welcome, and secondly, you would see a rather rare sight: seagulls seemingly walking on water in Gloucester docks. I am not aware of any divine intervention, but we have had a very dry summer and an unprecedented silt build-up. The Canal & River Trust has started a £4 million dredging programme, but I am concerned that in the long term we will keep seeing this problem build up again and again as the dry summers continue. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how we can make water companies such as Bristol Water, which pump water out of our canal system, pay their fair share to uphold and maintain the historic docks in Gloucester?

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex McIntyre

   Local Government Reorganisation

   The prize on offer for Gloucester residents from local government reorganisation is the promise of devolution so that we can share in the powers and investment that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have announced over the last few months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that local government reorganisation and the model proposed for Gloucestershire will unlock devolution opportunities, rather than block them? The only credible option for Gloucestershire is a foundation <span id="472" class="column-number" data-column-number="472"></span>strategic authority in the short term and joining the West of England combined authority in the long term. That is backed by six of our seven local councils and all four constituent councils of the WECA.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex McIntyre

   Budget Resolutions

   Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex McIntyre

   Budget Resolutions

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is an element of agreement, because in our Budget yesterday we agreed to get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, as did the hon. Gentleman’s mini-budget back in 2022. But does he agree that the difference between our Budget and his budget is that we will actually get to the spending review next year to be able to deliver it, and that it will last longer than 47 days?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex McIntyre

   Budget Resolutions

   Yesterday in the Budget the Chancellor’s priorities, and those of this Government, were clear: delivering breathing space for families and businesses in Gloucester this winter in the middle of global headwinds from wars in Ukraine and the middle east, and starting to tackle the big issues facing our country such as defence, social care, and energy bills, to build fresh hope and optimism for the future—a future that delivers real change for Gloucester residents. The cost of living crisis remains the No.1 concern for families and businesses in my city, so I welcome the down payment made by the Prime Minister this summer, reintroducing the £2 bus fare cap, scrapping VAT on electricity bills, and cutting business rates for our pubs. Yesterday I was pleased that the Chancellor went further. The £100 household energy payment will be paid to 50,000 households in Gloucester this January, providing much needed help in the coldest months. Freezing fuel duty and increasing the minimum wage above inflation will help. The Chancellor acknowledged that those measures alone will not solve the cost of living crisis, but they are a vital first step, with the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan <span id="511" class="column-number" data-column-number="511"></span>coming later this year, and the spending review next spring. I ask the Government throughout all of that to keep hard-working Gloucester families at the front of their minds when going through those processes. Breathing space is not just for families; it is also needed for the small businesses that are the beating heart of our city. For too long, our local high streets have been punished by an outdated business rates system. By freezing rates in real terms for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and providing that 20% cut for our pubs and live music venues, we are taking decisive action. By increasing small business rates relief, almost 60% of businesses on our high streets will be taken out of business rates altogether. I also welcome the Government’s new Hope on the High Street strategy, which aligns with the great work done by Andrew Hearne at Gloucester city council on our city masterplan. It is an ambitious plan for our city, and we must be ambitious. I must draw the House’s attention to the immediate roadblock that we face at home in Gloucester, because Gloucester city council is, to all intents and purposes, entirely broke. Years of mismanagement have forced it to rely on an emergency bail-out from the Government just to keep the lights on. To make matters worse, following a recent vote of no confidence in the leader of the council, the entire Lib Dem cabinet of the council has walked away, and it is now operating without any political leadership whatsoever. My constituents cannot afford for Gloucester’s regeneration to be held hostage by local political chaos and bankruptcy. The city centre desperately needs investment, officers need political certainty, and the businesses of Gloucester need a reliable, functioning partner to unlock the growth that this Budget makes possible. So I ask the Government today: what support can they provide to my constituents to get Gloucester back on track? How can we, at a national level, bypass this local vacuum of leadership to ensure that our city centre gets the investment it so desperately needs, and so that our national growth strategy is not blocked by local government failure? On growth, I want to ensure that Gloucester businesses truly benefit from our national economic strategy. Small businesses need a reliable place in the national supply chain. When we invest, we must buy local, build local, and grow local, and nowhere is that supply chain more crucial than in our national security. Gloucestershire has a proud, deep-rooted footprint in the defence, cyber-security, and aerospace sectors. I am proud that this Government are fully funding the defence investment plan, and putting ourselves on a firm path to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. I urge the Government to ensure that that historic investment flows directly to innovative SMEs in Gloucester such as Poeton Industries, Avon Metals, Cherry &amp; White and Permali—the very businesses engineering the technologies that keep our country safe. This Budget fundamentally recognises that the people closest to problems should have the power to solve them. It promises greater control over local economic futures, and it is clear that devolution is the key to unlocking Gloucester’s immense potential. Sadly, due to a lack of consensus from local leaders, Gloucestershire is being left behind. Only one option makes long-term <span id="512" class="column-number" data-column-number="512"></span>sense for Gloucester, and that is for us to join the west of England combined authority. I am in complete cross-party agreement with Lisa Spivey, the Liberal Democrat leader of Gloucestershire county council, on that. In the meantime we need a Gloucestershire foundation strategic authority to unlock investment in my city, and I ask the Government to meet me to deliver that. Every decision in the Budget shows that we have shut the door on the reckless, unfunded promises of shadow Chancellors past, and that we reject the dangerous rhetoric of Reform—its Members are again not here—whose pledge to slash public spending in 100 days without any detail would decimate our hospitals, schools, and police. We are choosing a different path. Gloucester has an incredible future ahead of it, provided that we get the devolution and investment we deserve. We can build new council homes, we can rebuild our high streets, and we can finally deliver the fresh hope that our great city deserves.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Adam Jogee

   Local Government Reorganisation

   I welcome the announcement in this statement that the Minister has scrapped the disgraceful and discourteous announcement made in July 2026. He is right to throw it out, but my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want and deserve certainty and clarity, and I did not hear much of that in the statement, so may I ask the Minister three very quick questions? Will he confirm how Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs will feed into the review? How much money will our local authorities get to redress what they have spent so far? And may I urge him to focus on the new mayoral authority announced yesterday, because that has the support needed to achieve a change of this scale?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Adam Jogee

   Budget Resolutions

   I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have already edited out lots of my speech, but I will try to read through my scribbles. In this Budget, His Majesty’s Government are taking the necessary steps to make everyday life that little bit easier for people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and thank goodness. Those steps and that determination stand in stark contrast with the chaos, instability and nonsense that we see at Staffordshire county council. This week we received news that Staffordshire county council is on to its fourth leader at County Hall since the county council elections in May 2025. It is an uninspiring and unfunny game of musical chairs, and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve much better. Our community is a great place and is home to good, hard-working, decent people. They deserve every little bit of help announced yesterday to make life that little bit more manageable, and there is much to welcome. I am pleased that more than 40,000 homes in my community will receive the £100 payment, as we have heard from colleagues across the House, to help with their energy bills, and that we have extended the 0% rate of VAT on electricity bills until July 2027. We are finally acting on gas standing charges, and there was more good news on fuel duty, too. We are taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing the small business rates relief threshold—important, too, for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in my community. In fact, these changes will mean that around 52% of all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in the west midlands will now no longer pay business rates at all. That will go some way to helping the much-loved and much-used pubs and restaurants in our town centre and communities, as well as boosting our local economy and keeping local people in work. We saw action on paternity leave, which will make the system fairer—that is excellent. I welcome the £55 million of funding that will be made available to accelerate the delivery of the violence against women and girls strategy—that is important stuff. I look forward to working with <span id="529" class="column-number" data-column-number="529"></span>the Chancellor and colleagues from coalfield communities to finally deliver the justice that our coal miners deserve. While I will never shy away from my concerns about local government reform and the impact that would have on my community, I am delighted that the Government have announced that a new mayoral strategic authority for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire is on its way. It will bring power, investment and decision making closer to those of us who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and that is to be welcomed. I have a bit more time left. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> It would do a disservice to my constituents not to use the time. Since I was elected, I have seen up close how our local authorities have passed the buck at every stage, and my constituents have suffered because of it. The change to a mayoral strategic authority will give us the opportunity to fix a broken transport system, to invest in our young people and to boost the resilience of our region, all with our local communities at the heart of the process. This Budget is one part of helping communities like mine recover from years of delay, dither and de-industrialisation. We owe it to the hard-working, skilled people who built our town and the young people who will move it forward to keep pushing for better. We have a proud history, a strong identity and huge potential, and with this Budget, we have begun the journey of reinvesting power and control into communities like mine. I will continue to do everything I can, as Newcastle-under-Lyme’s representative, to make sure that my constituents’ voices are heard loud and proud. There is a minute and 23 seconds back to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

   Budget Resolutions

   I begin by asking the House a question. When I heard the Chancellor’s speech yesterday, I thought, “Is that it? Is this the Government’s best shot?” If the Prime Minister is planning to go to the country on the back of this Budget, I say, “Bring it on.” Yesterday the Chancellor delivered the gravest betrayal of the just transition in my constituency and in Scotland. Grangemouth, Mossmorran and now St Fergus—this looks like Thatcherism on steroids. Is anyone seeing a pattern here? The Chancellor did not even have the courage to spell it out in yesterday’s Budget, with the loss of Government support for Acorn hidden in the weeds of the Red Book. While the Labour Government’s so-called “mature” carbon capture, usage, and storage projects in England and Wales get the go-ahead, their paltry offer to Scotland amounts to merely seeing how loans or equity investments can support the continued development of future CCUS, with specific mention of the Acorn site. In other words, the project will no longer be considered for direct Government money as part of the Government-funded track process.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

   Budget Resolutions

   No, I am not taking interventions. A lot of people want to speak. The Labour Government are prioritising £9.4 billion in England and Wales, but are not even managing £200 million for the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster. The rhetoric once again fails to match reality and instead reveals treachery in cold blood. I was promised a final investment decision by the previous Chancellor at the Dispatch Box. Where has that promise gone? Trust in this UK Government from Scotland lies in tatters, as they renege on their commitment to the green transition and re-industrialisation in the north-east of Scotland. We have taskforces, reports, road maps and decisions to be made in the future. It is jam tomorrow. As one newspaper put it this morning, the sound we heard yesterday was the can being kicked down the road. The Chancellor calls it capital reprioritisation, but his fancy phraseology hides the truth. Existing capital remains prioritised in Teesside and Merseyside. Why not Acorn in Scotland and the Scottish cluster? The UK’s net zero future, and thousands of jobs in Scotland, rely on the ability to cut industrial emissions. Acorn provides the country’s only viable CO₂ transport and storage solution. Without it, key industries including energy, chemicals and manufacturing will face mounting costs, a loss of competitiveness and a major risk of job losses. Meanwhile, as the cost of living and the cost of food, fuel and energy spiral upwards, Scotland remains trapped in an economic doom loop under Westminster control. We estimate £650 million will be removed from our budget next year.<span id="504" class="column-number" data-column-number="504"></span> Where is the breathing space for households? When energy bills will soon be more than £1,000 higher than promised, the Labour party’s gas price hike will disproportionately increase costs for people in Scotland. What about the many people who rely on home heating oil in my constituency and across Scotland? They will not benefit from the changes on standing charges. Where is the help for those households facing enormous hikes in heating costs? <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I know that Government Members do not like to hear it, but I am still going to say it. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Where are the transformative measures on child poverty?

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Budget Resolutions

    Where are the transformative measures on child poverty? The UK Government only have to look to Scotland for inspiration and innovative policies to combat child poverty, such as the Scottish child payment.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Budget Resolutions

    No. Where is Labour’s equivalent? Where is the full windfall tax on the banks? Just 3% for 15 months will not cut it, when £46 billion of profit was made in 2024.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·SNP·Seamus Logan

    Budget Resolutions

    I have already said no interventions, thank you. Where is the help for the Scottish whisky industry? Why is there nothing on fiscal drag and tax thresholds? Why is there nothing on VAT reduction for small hospitality businesses? Of course, the extent of the Barnett consequentials remains to be seen. Devolution is fine for mayors, but what we need in Scotland is a fresh start with independence. That is why we in the SNP choose Scotland, not this tepid version of a Chancellor’s Budget. It is a wasted opportunity, a betrayal of our energy workers and a hopeless stab in the back for struggling families. The Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. I will conclude by channelling the words of T.S. Eliot—words written more than a hundred years ago. This Budget was not so much a bang, but a whimper.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The reason this local government reorganisation has been so appalling shambolic is that the Government made political decisions, as opposed to the right decisions. Reform in Lincolnshire welcomes the decision to pause there, but does the Minister understand that Reform in Warwickshire is concerned that the two-unitary proposal he is minded to accept will lead to the bankruptcy of both unitaries within a matter of years?

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Reform·Nigel Farage

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am pleased that my party’s legal challenge has bought us a stay in Essex and elsewhere, but to re-emphasise: district councils matter to remote, rural and coastal communities. In Clacton, planning decisions—big decisions that matter—are taken in Clacton town hall. Under your proposals, those decisions will be made in a large population centre.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Reform·Nigel Farage

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Under these proposals, big planning decisions that are currently taken locally will be taken miles away, in a big population centre with no understanding of the local ground. Is that not against the devolution powers that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and you yourself have championed as being good for the country?

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Essex Day, which was on Monday this week, and thanking Mr Speaker for flying the flag of the county of Essex from New Palace Yard here in Parliament? We have wonderful charities in Essex such as the Collier Row &amp; Romford Foodbank and the Saint Francis Hospice, but we did not see very much in yesterday’s Budget to support the vital charities that help local people and do work that possibly takes away costs from Government. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can support local charities such as the ones I mentioned to support local people in my borough and across the country?

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Minister knows, because we have discussed this many times, that the boundaries of historical counties and cities are very different from local government boundaries, and I am pleased that he has said today that city status is preserved, as are ceremonial matters. Will he finally allow historical and ceremonial counties to be as one, in order to avoid confusion, and so that we in Romford can have our Essex identity, regardless of local government boundaries? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that there is no plan to merge the London borough of Havering with other east London boroughs to create some sort of super east London council?

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Wera Hobhouse

    Public Transport: Nuisance Behaviour

    While we Liberal Democrats are very pleased that the Government have listened to our calls to tackle headphone dodgers, I did not really hear an answer to the previous question. How is this policy going to be visibly enforced, so that public transport users in Bath can be sure that something is happening?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Ofcom’s mission is to make communications work for everybody. According to the Ofcom website, it helps people to get the most from their post, mobile, broadband, landline and online services, as well as “keeping an eye on TV and radio.” Yet as our methods of communication have broadened and the pace of technological change has increased, I have become increasingly concerned that Parliament has repeatedly given Ofcom new responsibilities without first asking whether it has the powers, resources or institutional culture necessary to fulfil those it already had. In preparation for this debate, I spoke with Citizens Advice, which raised concerns that Ofcom’s principal duty to further the interests of citizens, in relation to communications, and consumers, in relation to markets, creates a bias against intervention, meaning that action to protect consumers is often delayed, limited or treated as a last resort. I will focus on four areas: broadcasters, scam calls and messages, broadband infrastructure, and—I apologise, as this is the third parliamentary debate on this in a week—Royal Mail. Although those areas appear different, they all point to the same question: does Ofcom have the powers, appetite and focus to fulfil the role that Parliament expects it to? As we know, UK broadcasters are rightly respected around the world. Although the media landscape has become more complex, any organisation wishing to operate on television or radio must be subject to Ofcom regulation. The Ofcom broadcasting code is not optional, and it exists to protect the public from harm. Section 2 of the code covers harmful and offensive material, and section 3 covers content likely to incite crime or disorder. Those sections are crucial. We have all seen what happens when dis and misinformation published online or on TV spills over into violence in our communities. Just last year, Ofcom found that GB News breached the code by broadcasting discriminatory misinformation that linked LGBT people with paedophilia, yet only a year later, we see further investigations being made into similar GB News content that makes highly offensive claims about LGBT people. The fact that such behaviour is occurring again, on the same channel, so soon after regulatory action raises serious questions about whether that intervention was effective in the first place. Section 5 of the code covers impartiality and accuracy. Constituents regularly raise issues on that, and, I will be honest, those are not related just to GB News. Some people believe that the BBC has a left-wing bias, while others believe that it has become increasingly right wing— <span id="242WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="242WH"></span>some might say that that suggests the BBC has got it about right. I have found myself shouting at the TV, particularly during certain programmes, asking why the outrageous comments made by one commentator or another have not been shown. I am regularly asked why the activities of certain parties that have only a handful of MPs seem to get disproportionate coverage, and whether the media are now more interested in ratings than in impartiality on current affairs. But I am afraid that allegations made against public sector broadcasters such as the BBC pale into insignificance when compared with the regulation of GB News. A recent investigation, involving experienced journalists and specialists in the field, reviewed GB News’s output and found repeated examples of content that they considered inconsistent with the Ofcom code, yet in many cases, no regulatory action had followed. A former Ofcom director of standards said: “This was a test case for how Ofcom regulates broadcasters on due impartiality. It has failed that test.” He went on to say: “It now appears that Ofcom has abandoned any pretence that meaningful regulation of broadcast content is still being maintained.” That criticism deserves to be taken seriously. In 2024, Ofcom investigated GB News’s use of politicians as presenters, and concluded that politicians presenting news “risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news.” In its response, it warned that repeated breaches could ultimately lead to sanctions, including fines or the loss of a broadcast licence. And yet today, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been notified that I intend to refer to him, is advertised by GB News on its website as a presenter offering viewers the latest news, opinion and analysis. That appears to conflict with rule 5.3, which states: “No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes”, and rule 5.9, which says that “presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.” The hon. Member is also a shareholder in the channel and has received significant payments from it—this is all in the public domain. Even the channel’s founding chairman, Andrew Neil, has publicly questioned why Ofcom permits the arrangement. So I ask the Minister: what discussions has she had with Ofcom about the effectiveness of the broadcasting code, and will she consider launching a review into whether sitting MPs or political party leaders should be permitted to present news and current affairs programmes at all? I realise that this is a slight jump in tone, but the same questions about enforcement arise when we look at scams. I welcome the recent fine imposed on a telecoms provider for failing to prevent the misuse of telephone numbers, and I recognise the work that Ofcom has done to block scam messages in transit. However, my constituents continue to suffer due to the failure of Ofcom to enforce. Melchior from Broadstone receives scam calls from people claiming to be police officers, using genuine police station telephone numbers. Neil from Canford Heath reports receiving up to five scam calls every day from people pretending to be from Government <span id="243WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="243WH"></span>bodies. Judith lost thousands of pounds to rogue traders before a kindly neighbour intervened to help her. Another constituent, Paul, lost more than £60,000 to a romance fraud, where he believed he was communicating with Kate Beckinsale before he sadly died. My constituents are rightly asking why ID spoofing remains so prevalent when the technology exists to verify and authenticate communications. Five years ago, Ministers pointed to developments in the United States—in fact, it was the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) who wrote to my constituent saying that they intended to look at systems in America and bring them over here—yet residents continue to lose money and there does not seem to be any progress. Can the Minister explain what progress has been made through the migration to digital telephony, which concludes in January, what evidence exists that scam tracing is now improving, and how Ofcom intends to enforce protections more effectively in the years ahead? That brings me to the issue of connectivity. Although Ofcom’s figures show considerable improvements in gigabit broadband, the headline statistics mark the reality in rural and coastal communities. The most vulnerable of our residents are often the most digitally disconnected. Some are unwilling or unable to use broadband and internet, and it is important that we do not leave them behind, but when someone chooses to be digitally connected, they cannot be priced out of the market simply because they live in a rural area. People in rural communities such as mine are isolated when the wind blows or because their property is in a small hamlet, or even because, as I heard this week, it is the “last property” in the line in a village. According to Ofcom’s data, gigabit-capable broadband is now available in 88% of homes and businesses, with 4 million premises still without coverage. I recognise the significant improvement since 2020, but in some areas, properties have been dropped from the edge of a gigabit scheme, with the alternatives being simply laughable. Residents living on rural lanes between Wimborne and Sturminster Marshall were missed out of the scheme and told that they can get a voucher from Building Digital UK to spend on a commercial connection. That left them with two problems. The vouchers have been suspended in Dorset for at least the last two years, and even when they are available, no commercial provider will provide internet to six properties if the UK Government-sponsored provider does not feel that it is viable either. In Pamphill and Shapwick, the local church warden has just been quoted £4,000 plus VAT by BT Openreach to install broadband because they need a pole—a pole that will serve only one building because it is the last building before the river. The irony is that there is already a pole there, but BT’s failure to maintain its infrastructure means that it has decided to pass the cost on to the customer, which in this case is a church with about 20 people in the congregation. What is Ofcom doing to make sure that small rural communities can get the broadband availability they need? These small communities often do not have a bus, mobile service or even a village shop, so when they need help, the only option they have is the internet.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    I will share a similar tale of the failure to sort out a problem. In August, the village of Bloxworth, which has only about 80 houses and has poor mobile signal, no bus and no shop, was cut off completely when a tree took down their BT Openreach infrastructure. Despite allegedly having a 48-hour service standard, the repair took more than a week to complete. Residents were not even contacted and were later told that they should have been contacted by their individual provider, which is ridiculous. When the water goes down, the water board is responsible and when the electric goes down, it is the infrastructure provider—Scottish and Southern Energy in our area—that is responsible, not OVO or Octopus or whoever provides the electricity. In a data age, with resilience being much of the Government’s focus, it is utterly ridiculous that the main provider of infrastructure is allowed to pass on the responsibility and not communicate. It is somewhat ironic that when the communication goes down, there is radio silence.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened because that is apparently the root of the problem with my church. BT Openreach sent out an installer who was able to deal only with copper, but that is all being turned off in January, so he went away again. They came back and said, “You need someone with fibre,” and then they came back and said, “Oh, the pole’s not good enough. You need to replace the pole, but you have to pay for it.” The requirement to have fibre is because of the BT Openreach plan to turn off the PSTN and go on to the Voice over Internet Protocol, yet BT Openreach demands that the customers pay the costs because it has not prepared for that. You could not make it up. Are we still on track to turn the PSTN off in January, and what consideration has been given to those people who are still on the emergency systems? What will be done to make sure that BT Openreach is not passing on unfair costs to people who did not ask for that change in the first place? On resilience, what are the Minister and her team doing with Ofcom to ensure that the issue of communication is included in the plan for national resilience, and how is Ofcom holding the telephone companies to account when they pass on the costs? I could not possibly complete a debate about Ofcom without mentioning the post. I am aware that there have been two recent debates on the subject and I would be <span id="245WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="245WH"></span>here for as long as it takes my residents to get their post if I shared every story with the Minister, but I must repeat the comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) at the end of Monday’s debate. As chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, he talked about giving Ofcom until November to show that it is improving its performance. My residents tell me time and again about the length of time between their deliveries and how, miraculously, when someone on their street goes down to the delivery office to challenge the missing mail, bundles turn up in elastic bands. It is simply not credible that they all turned up on that very day. When I write to Royal Mail about this, I, and I am sure hon. Members alike, get a templated reply that basically feels like gaslighting. It never answers the question. I know, because I have spent a couple of shifts down at the sorting office, that local sorting offices have to tell their regional offices which frames did not get delivered. They have to report when vehicles break down or staff do not turn up for shifts. Royal Mail has the data about why that post is not being delivered; it just chooses not to share it with us or its customers. My question is, is it sharing it with Ofcom?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    The hon. Member is absolutely spot on. We know that the Minister is raising our concerns, but we need Ofcom to have the right powers, and we need to know what powers the Minister is seeking to give Ofcom if the situation persists. I have to share one other example to do with the post. I recently had a problem in the village of Sturminster Marshall, where they had no post for two weeks and a flood was blamed. I surveyed them all; I had 159 replies, and 149 of them shared their horror stories about Royal Mail. Royal Mail blamed the flood, but the flood happened at the end of the two weeks for which they had been waiting. If Royal Mail will not be accountable to us and tell us the truth, and if it is hoping that we will not notice, that prompts the question of what other things it is saying that could be misinterpreted.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    The hon. Member comes to my point about whether Ofcom is fit for purpose and needs to be broken up. He mentions the fines for people getting their bills late and missed hospital appointments, yet there is no real compensation scheme for customers. My train is 15 minutes late on a weekly basis—I am sure you will agree, Sir Desmond, as I think you use the same line. I do not think that there has been a week in the past year where I have not arrived home at least 15 minutes late at least once, but there is delay repay. If someone’s post is weeks late, they cannot go down and get any sort of claim from the local delivery office. Perhaps if there was, Royal Mail would take a little bit more action. Finally, today Ofcom released its recommendations for the most effective way to implement the social media ban. We know that that will be complicated and controversial. We know that it is the biggest issue of our time, really. Yet the job has been given to Ofcom. With everything that we have talked about, it is not lost on me that we are adding another very complicated and controversial thing when there is no evidence that Ofcom is able to manage. Under the new Prime Minister, a new Minister for AI has been created, recognising the importance of dividing up some of these jobs to groups who can focus on the big issues of our time. Perhaps this should be a watershed moment for Ofcom too. Throughout the debate, I have raised four very different issue: broadcast impartiality, scams, broadband access and Royal Mail. They all point to the same concern. Ofcom is increasingly being asked to regulate some of the most powerful organisations in our society while protecting some of the most vulnerable people. Yet again and again, constituents encounter a regulator that appears reactive rather than proactive, cautious rather than assertive and too often willing to accept poor outcomes for consumers. I ask the Minister to commit to a formal review of Ofcom’s powers, duties and enforcement framework, including whether its current structure is fit for purpose. If consumers cannot rely on the regulator to challenge broadcasters, tackle scams, secure connectivity or hold Royal Mail to account, it is not enough to ask whether they are doing their job. Parliament must also ask whether it has given Ofcom the tools to do it.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    Can the Minister confirm whether those powers might include compensation and a formal complaints system? It seems quite ridiculous that when someone’s mail is not going anywhere, the only thing they might get is more stamps.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Ofcom

    We have done very well to debate for an hour and 15 minutes with so few of us in the room. The passion that has been shown and the scope of issues with Ofcom shows how important this matter is. I remain concerned about the capacity of Ofcom to deliver on such a wide range of services and I hope that when the Minister reviews this debate, she will think about extending powers in the media Green Paper and potentially giving a separate role to the postal regulator. I would like to thank everybody for their fantastic speeches. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered the role and effectiveness of Ofcom.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Topical Questions

    Residents of Holton Heath and Sandford are being blighted every weekend by racing vehicles, motorcycles and modified small cars causing nuisance and loud noises. What progress is being made on the acoustic devices that enable police to act on these illegal vehicles?

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Business of the House

    My constituent William lives in a beautiful, high-quality recently built home in Wimborne, but the developer will not allow him or his neighbours to install solar panels on the front. Ben lives in a recently built beautiful shared ownership house in Merley, and his housing association will not allow him to install an EV charger. The Secretary of State for Housing has talked extensively about dealing with the blockers. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial update on the corporate blockers stopping people improving their own homes and trying to decarbonise?

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Hair and Beauty Sector

    Hairdressing and barber businesses are a core component of our high streets. They bring millions of repeat visits every year, provide local jobs, improve our emotional wellbeing and cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence or moved online. However, they are in crisis, with apprentice starts reduced by 84% since 2015, employment likely to fall by 93% by the end of this Parliament, and salon owners seeing the VAT rate as a penalty for employment and growth. The more than 2,000 signatories of the petition request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a permanently lower VAT rate of 10% for professional hairdressing, barbering, beauty, spa and aesthetics services.”<span id="545" class="column-number" data-column-number="545"></span> <em>Following is the full text of the petition:</em> [<em>The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,</em> <em>Declares that hairdressing and barbering businesses are vital for local economies through employing locally, providing training to young people and bringing millions of repeat visits to high streets throughout the year; further declares that these businesses provide people-powered services that cannot be moved online, automated, replaced by Artificial Intelligence or relocated overseas; further declares that the hair and beauty sector lost one in five employees in 2025; further declares that this loss was the largest loss of employment of any occupation in the UK, leaving just 68,500 employed workers; further declares that this is the equivalent of 20 employing salons closing every working day; further declares that apprenticeship starts have fallen by approximately 84% since 2015; further declares that CBI Economics warned in 2025 that employment in the hair and beauty sector could fall by 93% by the end of this Parliament if these trends continue; and further declares that the 20% VAT rate on salons is viewed by the sector as a penalty for employment and growth as, for businesses operating on narrow margins, VAT registration can make recruitment and apprenticeships financially impossible.</em> <em>The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a permanently lower VAT rate of 10% for professional hairdressing, barbering, beauty, spa and aesthetics services.</em> <em>And the petitioners remain, etc.</em><em>]</em> [P003255]

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Victoria Collins

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{1D4F1DD2-4649-4AC4-8B3F-8A40D23FA2A2}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{64814DA4-AD9D-42D4-97CB-0BDDDFEE8848}"></QuestionText>Harpenden Thameslink services are facing Luton airport expansion, the Bedford Universal studios development and 9,000 more houses coming down the line from this Government, following a local plan. All the while, passengers such as Emma are facing expensive, cramped and unreliable services. What are the Government doing to improve capacity, services and pricing?</Question>

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Victoria Collins

    Business of the House

    I declare an interest as a patron of the Hospice of St Francis. The assisted dying debate provided much-needed focus and cross-party commitment to improving palliative care so that all those in need can get support and solace, just like Judith’s husband, John, found at the Hospice of St Francis. Will the Leader of the House join me first in thanking the charities and volunteers who drive hospice care, and in ensuring that we keep up that momentum by securing a debate on palliative care to consider the four-point plan from Hospice UK and secure the future and funding of hospice care?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Duty to notify reports were introduced in 2025 for people who would not consent to entering the national referral mechanism. The regulator says that their number is undercounted. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner found that the main reason people would not consent was fear of immigration consequences. Some 25% of victims believed that they were better off in exploitation. The new clause would tackle some of those issues. GRETA—the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings—published its fourth report in May 2026. It said: “Due to fear of detention and deportation, many victims of trafficking do not want to be referred to the NRM.” That is the reason for the new clause. If the Government are not willing to support it, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what further measures she might bring forward to address those issues.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I hear and understand the Minister’s points. I am happy to withdraw the new clause, but I would like to press her a little further. I thought the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner gave some of the most compelling evidence we heard about these issues and people’s concerns about protections for victims of trafficking. Regrettably, when we debated these matters earlier in proceedings, particularly in relation to clause 36, we heard the same concerns about people coming forward and having reporting and disclosures used against them. How that information might be passed along is still a legitimate and valid concern. I gently ask the Minister to consider strengthening those protections in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 16 Duty to publish deadline for final implementation of White Paper reforms “(1) Within 30 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out a final deadline and operational roadmap for the full implementation of the reforms outlined in the White Paper titled Restoring Control over the Immigration System (CP 1326). (2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must specify— (a) the final date by which all primary and secondary legislation required to give effect to the proposals included in the White Paper will be introduced or laid before Parliament; (b) a schedule for any remaining public consultations or reviews by independent advisory bodies;<span id="506" class="column-number" data-column-number="506"></span> (c) the date by which revised Immigration Rules governing settlement, work routes, and enforcement mechanisms will come into full legal effect. (3) If the Secretary of State fails to meet any deadline set out in the statement laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report within 14 days of the missed deadline including— (a) the reasons for the delay, and (b) a revised deadline, which may not exceed 90 days from the original published deadline.”—<em>(Tom Gordon.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a roadmap and deadline for the full implementation of all statutory changes, rules, and secondary legislation proposed in the “Restoring Order and Control” White Paper.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I would very much like to hear from the Minister further certainty on what the rules will be. The intention of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State to set out a final deadline and a road map for the implementation of the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper. We also want to see a report within 14 days of any missed deadlines. To be clear, that White Paper on the legal migration system is really important. It matters because we expect refugees to move from core protection on to other routes such as work visas. There is a wider point here about the uncertainty—beyond asylum, too—with those proposed changes to settlement, which would require businesses to adapt their workforce planning. Business also deserve certainty about what those rules might mean. I look forward to hearing further clarification from the Minister.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    It is welcome to hear that the spirit of the new clause is honoured and that the Conservative spokesperson has sympathy with it—I did not expect such praise for our fantastic work on this Committee. I appreciate the Minister’s outlining some of the steps. I am sure we will continue to have the conversation about when we shall hear that further timeline and when it might be announced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em>

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 19 would create a new humanitarian travel permit that would see free entry clearance for people with a protection claim with a realistic prospect of success treated as a protection claim on arrival. The Liberal Democrats want to see the creation of a new humanitarian travel permit that would allow asylum seekers to travel to the UK safely to proceed with their claims. The reason for tabling this new clause is to establish from the Minister that the purpose of the new safe routes that have been announced and the UK resettlement scheme, which reopened in September 2026, is to prioritise vulnerable refugees. One in four referrals designated through that are Afghan women and girls fleeing the Taliban and Palestinian refugees from Gaza. If there is no need for this new clause, what are those existing routes going to do? What capacity will they have? How are they going to proceed? When should we expect to hear more on them? What proportion of refugees are expected to be of each nationality? Are the figures I just mentioned roughly correct estimates? What work has been done with in-country partners? Should she satisfy all those questions, I might be minded not to press the point.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for providing some more clarity. Again we look forward, with bated breath, to further announcements as and when they come, and again I press her to expedite that as much as she can. I will push back a little. One thing that I have been really proud to see, when there are humanitarian disasters such as war and famine, is that the UK is open and tolerant and wants to have a fair and safe system. Under the last Government, we saw some of the safe and legal routes in third party countries closed down, which has facilitated the need for people to come by small boat or enabled people to be exploited by such routes. I again press the Minister to convey to her colleagues in the other place the need to look at what more we can do for the legitimate people who are fleeing war, famine and other horrendous situations, such as crimes of genocide or war crimes. We need to look at how we ensure that we do not, because of an arbitrary cap, stop those people who might not have any other connections, countries or routes available to them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 20 Resourcing for law enforcement agencies “(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the duties of law enforcement agencies include— (a) any duties under this Act or the Modern Slavery Act 2015; (b) the conducting of surveillance on and detection of networks involved in modern slavery and human trafficking; (c) participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘law enforcement agencies’ include— (a) the National Crime Agency, (b) police forces in England and Wales, and (c) the British Transport Police.”—<em>(Tom Gordon.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking, including by participating in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 20 would ensure that the NCA, police forces and the British Transport police had resources for modern slavery duties, including Europol anti-trafficking operations. It would ensure that there was funding for the existing enforcement architecture to work. The Bill gives police new orders in clauses 25 to 34, but the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told the Committee that there is no “dedicated funding” for police modern slavery teams and that the current strategy<span id="518" class="column-number" data-column-number="518"></span> “is over 10 years out of date.”<span id="vol_col7" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="7" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="650A5AC6-F1B0-4C5D-A619-87AE76802E9E"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 7, Q6.]</span> I invite the Minister to reflect on that and talk about how to ensure, with the obligations in the Bill, that we can better tackle the gangs that have facilitated some of these horrendous crimes and make sure that people who have been brought here have the resources from the Government to help them in those instances.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    We had the Budget yesterday. Having quickly skimmed through those documents, there was little in the way of additional resources for the agencies listed. One of my concerns is that, while the Chancellor announced the devolution of further funding to mayoral areas, obviously not every area of the country will be impacted equally by gangs coming here in small boats. If that funding and those powers are passed locally, what further support will the Minister give from central Government to make sure that we do not end up with a patchwork across the south coast?

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em><span id="520" class="column-number" data-column-number="520"></span> New Clause 21 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings “The Secretary of State must— (a) within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s full compliance with the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and (b) within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on how the Government is ensuring full compliance with the Convention under this section.”—<em>(Tom Gordon.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation which ensure that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and subsequently report on the UK’s compliance with the Convention.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that would ensure that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and subsequently report on the UK’s compliance with the convention. I hope that is not overly contentious, given that we should seek to maintain our compliance with organisations such as the Council of Europe. The UK ratified ECAT in December 2008 and it came into force in 2009. It was the first treaty to put survivor protection at its centre, with binding standards on identification, support, recovery and prosecution. It has never been fully incorporated into primary legislation, so protections can be narrowed administratively without proper scrutiny, which concerns us. Compliance is monitored by the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings, whose fourth report to the UK found that referrals under the national referral mechanism rose from 12,687 in 2021 to 17,000 in the first nine months of 2025. The group commended faster identification and stronger enforcement, but found ongoing gaps in victim protection and legal support. This is about not just foreign nationals but British people, the most common nationality referred. Labour exploitation was found to be the main reason for referral, while for children it was criminal exploitation, notably county lines, so the new clause would have a wider purpose. I have previously made the point to the Minister that if we are not compliant with the convention, it will open us up to legal challenges down the line, which we would not want the Bill to do, for the sake of the country. I invite the Minister to comment on that and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

    Hansard source