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

6,905 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Topical Questions

   <Question HRSContentId="{8EE50CD6-38D3-4878-9308-02D4F4486013}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CEF19128-F145-4F2F-B3ED-C6FF87CA4138}"></QuestionText>In Bexhill and across the country, homeowners are being fleeced out of thousands of pounds by a company called Asset Invest Ltd, which bought titles with restrictive covenants affecting thousands of homes for just £1. This exploitative practice has to stop. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a cross-party group of MPs who want to see the new leasehold Bill bring forward better protections for homeowners in that terrible situation?</Question>

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   Will migrants who come to this country and set up legitimate small businesses that employ people who pay taxes be advantaged under the scheme that the Home Secretary has announced for earned settlement, or will they be excluded because they are not working people, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s definition announced this weekend?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Simmonds

   Nolan Principles

   The first of the Nolan principles is selflessness—acting solely in the public interest—but, according to feedback from councillors throughout the country, during <span id="561" class="column-number" data-column-number="561"></span>the botched local government reorganisation process they felt that they were under pressure to put political considerations first: pressure that came from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed). The new Secretary of State told the House recently that she could not say whether his decision making was even lawful. Can she now tell the House whether the pressure that was put on those councillors to submit to his reorganisation agenda left them at risk of breaching the Nolan principles as well as the law?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Karen Bradley

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   The Home Secretary will know that the Committee conducted a piece of deliberative democracy work, in which we worked with the public to find out their attitudes to people who are coming in on work visas. It was very clear that the public want skills training so that those in the domestic population can take vacancies. Can she confirm what work she is doing across Government to make sure there is appropriate skills training for those who are here to take the jobs available, and can she confirm when she expects the new provisions to start?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Chris Philp

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite. A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that she specifically chose to publish. She went on to say on 5 March that failing to implement her plans would be “an affront to the idea of fairness” in our society. That is exactly what she has done in the changes she has announced today. The Home Secretary now proposes to allow every single care worker and their dependants who arrived prior to May 2025—a number running into hundreds of thousands—to stay in this country beyond the expiry of their visa and, in the case of 75% of them, to stay permanently, even though she acknowledges that many of them arrived fraudulently. How can she justify allowing people who she acknowledges arrived in this country fraudulently to stay forever, at a cost that she herself has admitted is £10 billion? That is the cost of today’s U-turn: £10 billion. Outside of care workers, many of the so-called highly skilled workers who have arrived recently are not highly skilled at all. The Home Secretary did not mention this in her statement, but in her document she proposes to extend the soft terms on which those workers can stay until 2035, extending the previous sunset by five years. <span id="587" class="column-number" data-column-number="587"></span>Her own document published today, which she did not refer to, forecasts that a staggering 1.9 million permanent settlement rights will be granted between now and 2030, and a freedom of information request has revealed where some of those people work. German Doner Kebab, a chain of kebab shops, sponsored 106 skilled worker visas. Khans middle eastern restaurant sponsored 28 high-skilled visas. A Domino’s Pizza franchise in South Yorkshire sponsored 78 high-skilled visas—Members get the picture. Just a year after getting ILR, someone can easily get full citizenship, and we know what that means: benefits, social housing, and free NHS treatment. <em>[Interruption.] </em>When the Home Secretary said in March that failing to implement her changes would be an affront, she was right, but now she has done exactly that. She also plans to give illegal immigrants who have arrived on small boats ILR and citizenship. We disagree with that. Why has the Home Secretary made those changes? It is because the Housing Secretary—who I notice has run out of the Chamber—the Energy Secretary and the Labour open-borders left oppose what she previously announced. The Home Secretary is no longer running the Government’s immigration policy—the Housing Secretary is—and her position is looking increasingly untenable. The Home Secretary has done no better with her announcements last year than Keir Starmer did with his welfare announcements, and we know what happened to him. We would go a lot further than the Home Secretary’s previous announcements, although they were a good start. If she wants to implement them in full, we will vote for them, because mass low-skilled migration must end. Those people who came here on a temporary visa and are working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs must leave when their temporary visa expires. We cannot allow them to stay forever, claiming benefits and social housing, yet that is what the proposals today will allow to happen. Ten billion pounds—that is the cost of today’s U-turn. To those who ask where we will find the workers, I say there are 9 million economically inactive adults in this country. Thanks to this Labour Government’s high-tax, high-regulation policies, there are now a million young people not in education, employment or training. If the Government had the courage to toughen up the welfare system, we would get some of those people into work, instead of relying on mass low-skill migration. If the Home Secretary wants to face down her nemesis, the Communities Secretary, and implement her own plans, we will vote for them. However, if she capitulates to the open borders left, her credibility as Home Secretary will not recover.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   One of the criteria to gain long-term settlement rights that the Home Secretary set out was no debt being owed to the state. What does that look like in reality? I have advocated for a student loan-style system for debts to be repaid. Will the Home Secretary address what steps she is taking to abolish the impact of rogue sponsors, namely chicken shops, Turkish barbers and vape shops, which all exist in plain sight and are an acute problem in the illegal immigration web?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   The Home Secretary did not address the issue of the dependants of armed forces personnel. In June, the majority of Government Members voted down my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which included the waiving of visa fees. That has now been overturned in the House of Lords, and the Bill will be coming back here, but will she clarify exactly what will happen to the spouses and children of armed forces personnel? Will their visa fees be waived? If they earn less than £50,000 and do not work in healthcare or a professional job, will they have to find themselves—sorry, I have lost my train of thought.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Bowie

   Budget Resolutions

   Growth in every postcode and breathing space—that is apparently the theme of this debate. That is what we are told the Budget will deliver. The sad fact is that it really could have been an opportunity to focus on growth and to support British businesses and people. It really was an opportunity to fix the mistakes of the past two years, to back business and unleash Britain—but the Government did not take it. All we appear to have had from the Secretary of State is the belief that more government will solve all of our problems. The Budget was an opportunity to end the smash-and-grab tax policies on working people—that includes employers, by the way—but Labour doubled down. The Chancellor could have demonstrated that when he resigned as Defence Secretary he did so out of principle and set out a road to 3% of GDP on defence, but we did not get that either. The Government could have taken steps to cut welfare and get Britain working, but, too scared of their Back Benchers, the Government are allowing the welfare budget to continue to spiral out of control. The Budget was a total missed opportunity. Far from growth in every postcode and breathing space, we saw a steady-as-she-goes Budget: a change of captain, a rearranging of the deckchairs, but no change of course—which would be fine if the vessel we were on were not the Titanic. One area we did see some action in the Budget—one issue that was mentioned considerably—was on the cost of energy and our energy security, or lack thereof. There was a slight but definite acknowledgment that the energy policies enacted by the Labour Government up to this point had been having a negative impact on the people and businesses of Great Britain. That was why I was more than a little surprised not to see energy as a theme of this Budget debate, and why I was surprised not to see the Secretary of State for Energy speaking as part of it. Or is she not too keen on this change of direction, and this moderate shift from the Government towards something resembling common sense does not sit well with her? Where is she? Absent from Parliament when they announced Jackdaw and absent from the Budget debate, she is either in hiding or being kept hidden. The words of the Chancellor last week that the Energy Secretary has “opposed” rather than approved Jackdaw was not so much a slip of the tongue as a lifting of the veil into the division at the heart of this Government when it comes to energy policy. The truth is that we have a Government totally divided on energy policy, between a Chancellor and a Treasury desperate for growth and some good news, and an Energy Secretary and parliamentary party still <span id="621" class="column-number" data-column-number="621"></span>wholly signed up to a Milibandism approach to energy that values net zero and clean power 2030 above all else—above jobs, cost and our security. We have an Energy Secretary briefing out that she is inclined not to approve Rosebank, presumably on the basis that growth in every postcode does not include postcodes that begin with AB, and a Chancellor briefing that it will be approved soon. We have Labour Back Benchers claiming that Rosebank is oh so different to Jackdaw because it is oil, which is exported, not like gas, which we use at home—as if, somehow, generating revenue from exports, displacing Russian oil from the European market and backing British jobs are bad things. We also have the Office for Budget Responsibility including revenue from Rosebank and future discoveries as part of its projections for Government revenue over the next year. We have the Treasury cutting funding from carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects, Energy Ministers scrambling over themselves to insist that funding has not been cut, the Treasury announcing a cut to the warm homes fund of £1 billion, and the Energy Department insisting that the warm homes fund remains at the heart of the Government’s plans to support those on the lowest incomes insulate and decarbonise. This is utterly chaotic—no wonder the Energy Secretary is being hidden away or is in hiding. For over two years, we have been listening to various Ministers lecture and patronise those of us on the Conservative Benches that we were wrong, that we did not need more gas from the North sea, that it was clean power that mattered over the cost of energy, and that we must have consensus on energy policies. The Conservatives have been clear from day one that the cost of energy, the security of our energy supply, and the future of our North sea are the issues that should guide and shape our energy policies. It is good to see that that consensus may be returning, and not just on the entirely reasonable and sensible step of ensuring that one has a well-stocked fridge of sauvignon blanc ready for emergencies.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Bowie

   Budget Resolutions

   It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with him. In fact, what we have seen are billions of pounds generated for this country since the 1960s, driven by the private sector investing in jobs, investing in this country, creating wealth and making the North sea one of the cleanest and safest basins in the world in which to invest. I am very proud of the companies, and the men and women, who have driven that oil and gas industry to be the best in the world. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, and unlike the Government, we want to see that go further—we want to see further investment in our North sea oil and gas industry. As I was saying, consensus is welcome, because we are in an energy crisis and there is no escaping that. The people and businesses of this country face some of the <span id="622" class="column-number" data-column-number="622"></span>highest energy bills, domestic and industrial, in the developed world, and it is getting worse. Under Labour, our energy system is becoming increasingly unreliable and intermittent, and more reliant on imported energy. The burden of expensive energy is bearing down on Britain in households, businesses and industry, and having severe consequences. While the Chancellor acknowledged that, which was as welcome as it was surprising, it was entirely underwhelming. Some of the announcements in the Budget may have seemed impressive, but they will not even touch the sides. There may be £100 for certain households, but when people’s bills are set to increase by over £500 in January, many will ask what was the point—will people even notice it? It is clear, however, that the Chancellor had at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping levies on energy bills—I wonder where he might have got that idea?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Bowie

    Budget Resolutions

    The hon. Member is absolutely right, but, as usual, the Labour party gives no regard to those with aspiration or who want to succeed and get on. All it cares about is handouts and subsidies for “Benefits Street”. The Conservatives are the party that will support those who are working hard to do the right thing and move forward.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Bowie

    Budget Resolutions

    It is the cheap power plan, not the clean power plan, but I do not want to be too much of a stickler for detail. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that we are under new management now in the Conservative party, and I look forward to implementing our plan when we win the election. There was also the surprise announcement of the removal of standing charges on gas bills—well, only surprising for the SNP group leader, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who did not know whether he still supported the move that he called for in 2024. On the face of it the measure may appear to lower bills, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. If someone is a higher consumer—someone who uses gas for heating, cooking or hot water—then their energy bill is going to go up. Across Britain, temperatures are beginning to drop as we head into winter, and in large parts of this country—in the north of England and Scotland—it has just got more expensive to turn the heating on, thanks to Labour.<span id="623" class="column-number" data-column-number="623"></span> Some 80% of households in Britain rely on gas to keep them warm, which is why the delay before making a decision on Jackdaw was so maddening. When the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approved the decision, through gritted teeth, it was rightly justified on the basis of energy security. Getting gas out of the Jackdaw field is what is best for Britain, because every bit of gas from that field will go directly into the British gas network. However, the devil is in the detail. As I have said, we were all very surprised to see that revenue from Rosebank is still being accounted for in the OBR’s projections for revenue. Considering that the Secretary of State has suggested to the press that she is not minded to approve Rosebank, despite it being a quasi-judicial decision, does that mean that the forecasts are possibly misleading or wrong—or is the Chancellor about to get his way again, and Rosebank is about to get the go-ahead? We need to have that cleared up. We need to understand. The theme of today’s debate is growth in every postcode and breathing space. This Budget, however, did nothing for growth and gave no breathing space, save for a couple of gasps of cold air from those who will be too scared to turn on their heating this Christmas. It could have done, though. We could have seen a bold Budget: a Budget that said, without equivocation, that we support our North sea oil and gas industry; a Budget that got Britain drilling by removing the energy profits levy today, not in three years; a Budget that reduced the cost of energy by slashing the levies, charges and taxes that still make up too much of an individual’s or business’s energy bill; and a Budget that reindustrialised our country by incentivising investment and growth, not one that doubles down on net zero and linking the emissions trading scheme with Europe. That is the Budget we needed to see. It is the Budget the Conservatives would have presented, and it is the Budget we will present when we win the next general election.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alison Griffiths

    Budget Resolutions

    The one county that the Secretary of State did not mention in her very long list is West Sussex, which has been waiting through two and a half years of dither and delay. Will she take this opportunity to tell me the plan for West Sussex?

    Hansard source
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
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. 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