partytracker.uk

Showing every spoken contribution, including 6,905 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Lewis Cocking
Houses in Multiple Occupation
To residents across the country, a standard family home being converted into an HMO for a large number of adults is a material change. It changes the character of an area, and it places pressure on parking and local services. Too many HMOs are being used to house people who come to this country illegally, and we know for a fact that many of these men are dangerous. However, the current rules do not reflect the negative impact an HMO can have, with landlords not needing to apply for planning permission if it is for less than five occupants, and the article 4 direction does not go far enough. What work is the Minister doing to investigate changing the rules so that all HMOs, regardless of size, require planning permission so that local people’s voices can be heard?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Kit Malthouse
Topical Questions
As the Housing and Planning Minister knows, a planning inspector has made some outrageous decisions regarding the national landscape in my constituency over the past few months. Will he therefore please confirm from the Dispatch Box, for the benefit of all the planning inspectors out there, that his intention is to strengthen protections for our national landscapes in the latest edition of the national planning policy framework?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Katie Lam
Topical Questions
Last month, it was reported that money from the Department’s community recovery fund had been funnelled to explicitly partisan groups, and had been used to train activists in how to influence the public to make them pro-migration and against the Conservative party, which was named in training materials. Can the Secretary of State please explain how on earth taxpayer money was spent on this kind of partisan political activity?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Katie Lam
Topical Questions
In a statement issued by the Department last month, we were told that this money, which has been spent on partisan political campaigning, can be recovered if it has been used improperly—but that is not the same as doing it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will investigate and recoup every penny of taxpayer money funnelled to those partisan groups, either directly or by instructing councils?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
House Building
<Question HRSContentId="{C78F2A38-4BDC-4A83-A955-4C17CEA22D08}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A5BAA4C3-95D1-4B3C-9920-FE3D9C0CCC65}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the rate of house building.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
House Building
Statistics are like bathing costumes: what they reveal is interesting, and what they conceal is absolutely vital. The statistics we heard in that answer conceal the fact that this Government are on line to build fewer houses than the last Conservative Government did in a parliamentary term blighted by covid, when many building sites were completely shut down. When it comes to housing, this Government are drowning, not waving, aren’t they?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative John Cooper
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{4A560409-921B-41F8-9E98-C5F5C5E1DBDC}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{13873A39-4A4C-49DE-81A1-D912BB4957C8}"></QuestionText>This Government are facilitating a property grab by allowing councils to seize properties that have been left vacant for as little as six months. Rather than stealing properties, would not the Secretary of State be better using the powers of state to cut regulation, cut taxes and get more houses built?</Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative James Wild
Social Media: Ban for Under-16s
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on the way he introduced it and spoke up for those who signed the petition. I have some sympathy for the position that Leo and the other signatories set out opposing restrictions on social media for under-16s. When the debate on this issue began, I was initially sceptical that increasing the age limit was the appropriate response; there are many good uses of tech for young people that they should be free to explore. However, the wider debate has been running for some considerable time. Nearly 20 years have passed since I was working for T-Mobile on the Byron review, which looked at online child safety. The focus then was on platforms taking responsibility for protecting young people. Sadly, they have failed to do that. On balance, therefore, I agree that the evidence and experience demonstrate that increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know that social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content, with damaging and, very sadly, tragic consequences. The Conservatives believe that parents have ultimate responsibility for their children, but we also acknowledge the challenge they face in keeping their children safe online. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) set out this point clearly: an activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and amplified online. That is why the shadow Education Secretary, as well as my noble Friend Lord Nash and many hon. Members from across the House campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms, working with parents and bereaved families. I welcome the announcement the Government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms that will protect children and help parents. However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation. In that context, I was concerned by Ofcom’s recent report on the Online Safety Act, which found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That is clearly disappointing and worrying. Laws need to be implemented effectively. The Government have said they intend to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, to take effect in the spring. Can the Minister confirm that that timetable remains the same? If it is, when will the regulations be published, given we are now in November? We should, as others have said, learn from Australia’s restrictions and where they have been bypassed. Last week, Ofcom published its review of age-verification tools and recommended four methods: photo ID, digital ID, face-age estimation technology, and banking-based checks. Supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age-checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data, so that review raises a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister. First, does the Minister agree that, as far as possible, information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum the requirement to provide photo ID and use face-scanning technology as much as possible? Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, so what protections should be in place for users’ data? For the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? In that report, Ofcom estimates that around 150,000 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK hold neither a passport nor a provisional driving licence. How will the Government inform those young people of options such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? Is the Minister looking at age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but of reducing friction for adults accessing social media? Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that does not mean that we should take no action. Having effective controls and penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom spoke about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under-16s being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective. Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to “strengthen device-level protections” to prevent “children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 917.] What progress has there been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed secure commitments from major tech companies to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed? Our role as legislators is to ensure that the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate. Protecting children from harm is a duty that all Members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. The public consultation and the conversations that I have had show that there is support for action to introduce effective age-based access to social media as part of wider measures to protect children. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right.
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gregory Stafford
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
<Question HRSContentId="{ABAAC562-8C44-4F90-9F6B-4FC55094AFE5}">12. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{62D0C30E-0B2C-45E9-ACC7-14CB4453D65A}">What her planned timetable is for introducing the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill.</QuestionText> </Question>
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gregory Stafford
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
I recently met constituents in Grayshott and Haslemere who face poor communication from managing agents, with little transparency on where the service charges and costs that they are forced to pay go. Meanwhile, Surrey and Hampshire are set to lose out under the Government’s funding review, leaving many of those same residents facing higher council tax bills. Will the Secretary of State finally tell us when the leasehold reform Bill will be published, and give a guarantee that any savings delivered through that reform will not simply be wiped out by the higher council tax bills caused by her Government’s funding decisions?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gareth Bacon
House Building
In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister said that there were “encouraging signs of progress”, but the truth is that the housing industry faces a bleaker and bleaker future under this Government: housing completions are at their lowest for more than a decade; planning permissions are down 31%; output is down 6%; London is at a standstill; and the Government are just 29% of the way through their target in nearly half the time allotted for it. Does the Minister agree that this broken record of failure needs urgent repair?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative Gareth Bacon
House Building
The Minister wants to talk about the OBR, so let us do that. Last week, the OBR was damning in its assessment of the viability of house building in England. It highlighted how regulatory and fiscal burdens are crushing viability. The Chancellor promised no new building regulations, but that is not enough. The Minister knows that viability—or, rather, the lack of it—is killing the house building sector. The existing environmental and net zero regulations and taxes are causing the viability crisis, so will the Minister join me in supporting the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with her plan to cut £50,000 of regulation and taxes from the cost of building new homes to make sites viable again?
Hansard source
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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. 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. [Interruption.] 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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. 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
2 Nov 2026ParliamentConservative 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSNP 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSNP 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. 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? [Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not like to hear it, but I am still going to say it. [Interruption.] Where are the transformative measures on child poverty?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSNP 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSNP 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSNP 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentReform 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentReform 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentReform 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentReform 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 & 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentReform 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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— 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 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib 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

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

All parties, latest first

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Topical Questions

Topical Questions

Topical Questions

House Building

House Building

Topical Questions

Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

House Building

House Building

Topical Questions

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Nolan Principles

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Business of the House

Local Government Reorganisation

Public Transport: Nuisance Behaviour

Ofcom

Ofcom

Ofcom

Ofcom

Ofcom