Ofcom

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, The regulation of postal services, HC131, and the Government response, HC624.]

15:00

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has outlined some of the problems that her constituents are having with BT. I want to be kind to BT if I can, but I have to be honest as well: BT falls short. An organisation that does exceptionally well is Fibrus. Over the last couple of years, although it has had almost 200 complaints, it has genuinely sorted out 199 of them—I am not making that up—and it is doing its darndest to sort out the outstanding one. BT unfortunately falls short every time. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that and I will highlight it as well.

[Vikki Slade]

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.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about villages. In my constituency, a number of villages do not have a shop or a bus, and so on, but they did have the public switched telephone network. Ofcom has overseen the switch-off of that old copper network infrastructure, but it has not placed an obligation on Openreach to communicate with the people who are losing their telephony. Does she agree that it is not too late in the day for Ofcom to put Openreach on the hook for communicating with people who are about to lose their copper network?

[Vikki Slade]

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?

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a really important speech about many of the ways in which Ofcom’s regulation touches everybody’s lives, especially through Royal Mail—I am sure she will be aware that I am doing some work in this space. A number of other Labour MPs and I spoke to Ofcom at a meeting just last week where we asked what other powers it needs. Fines are clearly not working: the fines that Ofcom is levying on Royal Mail are not leading to any improvement. I was really disappointed at the response, which was that Ofcom has not really thought about what other powers it needs. Does the hon. Member agree with me, and with the Business Committee, that Ofcom really needs to think about what other powers it needs to regulate the market more effectively? It is failing to, currently.

[Vikki Slade]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot let a Royal Mail comment go by without speaking on behalf of my constituents in Strangford, who have problems with mail delivery on a daily basis. Some of that delayed post unfortunately includes hospital appointments, bank statements and things that they have to action. Does the hon. Lady agree that Ofcom’s capacity to effectively oversee Royal Mail needs to be reassessed? It is very clear from the examples that she and other Members have given that it is just not up to the job.

[Vikki Slade]

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.

15:21

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, I think for the second time this week. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. She made a critical point in her final remarks about the effectiveness of Ofcom and whether we are overdue a review. It is 26 years since Ofcom was set up, and the changes in modern communication that we have seen in that time have been profound. It is a very valid point.

Before entering Parliament, I worked in mobile telecommunications for 13 years. During that time, I saw how Government policy and regulatory frameworks shape competition, investment and consumer choices and outcomes. One lesson that I took from that experience is that spectrum policy matters enormously. Spectrum is not simply a technical issue for regulators. It is one of the most powerful tools available to support competition, investment and innovation in mobile.

Back in 2000—I am that old—the UK’s 3G spectrum auction demonstrated that point very clearly. Competition sat at the heart of the then Labour Government’s policy. The result was a highly competitive mobile 3G market that encouraged substantial investment in infrastructure, rapid innovation and major benefits for consumers. Over time, and I am afraid to say particularly due to the decisions taken in the early 2010s by Conservative Ministers, that competitive landscape shifted. Spectrum holdings that were held for the use of mobile data became increasingly less equal, and the opportunities to strengthen genuine infrastructure competition were missed. As a result, some of the benefits that came from a competitive 3G market were lost.

Much is said about competition in telecommunications, and rightly so. Consumers can choose from a wide range of broadband and mobile providers. That competition helps drive innovation, service quality and value for money. However, we should not confuse retail competition with infrastructure competition. True competition depends not only on the number of brands selling services, but on competition between the networks that underpin those services. Without effective infrastructure competition, consumers might appear to have plenty of choice, but what they do not have is plenty of coverage—certainly not in rural areas such as my constituency.

Spectrum sits at the heart of that challenge. It is a finite national asset, on which every mobile call, message and wireless data connection depends, and the way it is allocated has a profound impact on investment coverage and long-term market structure. Ofcom, therefore, has a critical responsibility to ensure that spectrum policy promotes genuine competition, supports investment and delivers benefits to consumers in every part of the country, including rural and hard-to-reach communities. Spectrum policy should strengthen rather than simply reinforce the position of the operators that already hold significant advantages in low-frequency spectrum in particular, which is critical for delivering rural and indoor coverage.

However, I do not believe that responsibility rests solely with Ofcom. Spectrum is one of the most valuable public assets this country possesses. Decisions about how it is used shape competition, investment, innovation and coverage for decades. Those decisions should be informed by a clear national strategy set by Government. We have long-term strategies for transport, energy and digital infrastructure. There is a strong case for a clear, long-term spectrum strategy that sets out how spectrum allocation will support economic growth, innovation, network resilience and genuine infrastructure competition.

Infrastructure competition is not, on its own, enough. We must also look at the resilience of our mobile networks, because mobile connectivity is now an essential service. People rely on it to access banking, public services, transport information, employment and emergency assistance. Businesses rely on it to operate, communicate and serve their customers. When networks fail, the consequences are no longer merely inconvenient. Outages can disrupt livelihoods, affect public confidence and leave people unable to access services on which they depend. That makes Ofcom’s work on network resilience critical. Mobile operators must be expected to maintain robust infrastructure, communicate clearly with customers when problems occur and learn lessons when failures happen.

Resilience should not be treated as an aspiration; it should be a core obligation. However, currently, it is left simply to Ofcom guidance. Reliable mobile connectivity is now part of our critical national infrastructure. It underpins growth, services and everyday life, and the public rightly expect networks to be dependable. I ask the Minister: is guidance on something as critical as mobile resilience sufficient? Should Ofcom not instead require the mobile networks to have back-up power to their mobile masts? That does not have to be permanent back-up; it could be a fleet of electricity generators that can be taken to masts in the event of power outages. I do not believe guidance is sufficient.

My second question is: do the Government believe that citizens and consumers, which Ofcom has a dual duty towards, would benefit from a clearer national spectrum strategy from Government working alongside Ofcom? Thirdly, does the current regulatory framework provide sufficient tools to promote infrastructure competition? Ultimately, consumers need more than a choice of provider; they need confidence that the networks on which they depend deliver the coverage they need, that they are resilient and reliable, and that Government, regulators and industries are working towards a clear, long-term plan to fully utilise one of the most important assets our country has.

15:29

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this timely debate.

I want to focus on Ofcom’s role as the regulator of postal services. That is a different aspect from its work ensuring that news is impartial or keeping our young people safe online, and therein perhaps lies the problem—it is being asked to be a jack of all trades and, as a result, it is the master of none. Earlier this week, I spoke about the effectiveness of Ofcom during a debate in the Chamber on Royal Mail, and I have come here today to reaffirm that argument.

Since 2022, Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £5.6 million, then £10.5 million, then £21 million for failing to meet its targets. In the year to March 2026, only 75.7% of first-class mail arrived the next working day, against the target of 93%. Ofcom opened an investigation into that failure on 1 June. Nearly five months later, we are still waiting for the outcome. Meanwhile, the targets themselves have been lowered, to 90% for first class and 95% for second class, and second-class deliveries have moved to alternate weekdays. The public are being asked to accept a reduced service, measured against easier targets, from a company that has not even managed to meet the old ones in years.

In May, the Business and Trade Committee concluded that Ofcom is failing as a statutory regulator, and that its approach has for years failed to deliver the step change in performance that the public deserve. Part of the problem is that fines are simply not a deterrent. The law allows Ofcom to fine postal services up to 10% of turnover, but its largest penalty is a small fraction of that, and every penny goes to the Treasury. Nothing reaches my constituent who missed a hospital appointment because the letter arrived a day after the actual appointment. Where is their opportunity for recourse?

At the moment, Royal Mail’s own complaints process is aimed at the sender of the mail and is all about compensating them for the cost of postage by giving them books of stamps; it does nothing to compensate recipients of mail for the consequential losses from that mail not arriving on time, which can be significant. Aside from missed appointments, there can be financial issues, and we had an example where someone had received a court summons too late, which obviously had very serious consequences.

If a constituent makes a complaint to Royal Mail and they are not happy with the outcome, they cannot go to Ofcom and make a complaint about the individual case. We have been told that Ofcom will not look into local cases and will look only at the picture across the country as a whole. We need a regulator with teeth, legally binding penalties that can actually change a business’s behaviour, automatic compensation and a proper complaints system. A regulator ready to use its powers could solve this problem.

I have raised this issue in questions and letters to Ministers, but each time the response is essentially a regurgitated, “This is a matter for Ofcom.” However, Ofcom’s powers are set by this Parliament, and I do not believe they are working, so Ministers have a responsibility to intervene. Either Ofcom’s postal powers and its approach must be fundamentally reset or its responsibility for postal regulation should move to a dedicated independent regulator that will take it seriously.

Surely, that is what Ministers must now be considering. If the Minister stands here today and again tells us that Ofcom is an independent regulator, and Royal Mail a private company, so nothing can be done, it will be utterly embarrassing. Where are the Government’s teeth? Are they seriously taking the same lacklustre approach as Ofcom?

I have two direct questions for the Minister. First, do the Government accept the Select Committee’s conclusion that Ofcom is not effectively regulating Royal Mail’s performance? Secondly, will the Government commit to a review of Ofcom’s postal powers, including whether those powers would be better held by an independent postal regulator? Too much time has been spent bringing Royal Mail’s failures to Ministers’ attention. They have heard enough. Will they now act?

15:33

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow three excellent speeches, with which mine will overlap to some extent.

Ofcom’s role is vast. It has grown exponentially since it was set up in 2003, and it now has in its clutches online harms and the whole minefield of regulating social media, but my focus today will be on broadcasting. Parliament decided that—uniquely—broadcast news should be impartial, and it is more important than ever that the airwaves provide a vital counterbalance to the partisan, clickbait world out there online.

Arguably, nowhere can Ofcom’s ineffectiveness be seen more than in that most glaringly obviously anomalous broadcaster of them all, GB News—the telly wing of the Reform party. Some of these criticisms apply similarly to its close bedfellow, Talk TV and radio.

The Communications Act 2003 laid down the law, quite literally, on impartiality in “news in whatever form”—those are the actual words used. Sections 319 and 320 set out the Ofcom broadcasting code. However, GB News and Talk TV and radio flout these rules daily, and they make no pretence at all of objectivity. This question has already been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): what other channel would platform a serving MP and party leader—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been emailed—with a regular show? That would not happen anywhere else. Other hosts include ex-MEPs from what used to be called the Brexit party and a Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who has also been emailed. It is all part of a one-sidedly right-wing roster; Jacob Rees-Mogg is as leftie as it gets.

On the rare occasions when airtime is afforded to someone from the other side, they are set up as a punchbag to be pilloried. Let us remember how Gary Lineker was pulled up for his tweets. BBC directors general have always insisted that their presenters leave their politics at the door, but there is no such rule for GB News. In fact, to have right-wing politics appears to be a prerequisite to be a presenter. Look at the subject matter: rape gangs, small boats and Muslims—the Reform party’s greatest hits.

Section 2 of the Ofcom broadcasting code spells out the duty to protect the public from “harmful and/or offensive material”, section 3.2 explicitly forbids “hate speech”, and section 3.3 stipulates:

“Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in”

broadcast television and radio services, yet all those occur daily on these Ofcom-regulated services, in contravention of the rules.

Manifold examples exist. Some have already been mentioned. In January, GB News host Josh Howie said that

“the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons…includes paedos”.

What! Ofcom received 70,000 complaints and ruled that GB News had breached its broadcasting code, but after an on-air apology there was no further action. In June, right-wing influencer Based and Bougie claimed on the channel that gay men are “more prone” to “sexual deviancy” and “child sexual assault”. Ofcom received 3,000 complaints and opened a formal standards investigation to which there is no conclusion yet. In July, Caroline Farrow, a well-known anti-gay rights and anti-abortion activist, stated that pride

“is not about gay rights”

but has become about celebrating “bestiality” and “paedophiles”. Ofcom received 12,000 complaints, and we are still waiting. Those are not examples of rogue guests; they are people invited for their extreme views in the age of clickbait.

The story is the same with presenters. On Talk radio last year, Mike Graham stated of dinghies that we should

“destroy them, set fire to them, flamethrow them, do whatever you want with them.”

There is no published Ofcom action. It has twice upheld complaints against that anchor, but there are no published financial penalties or statutory sanctions. This August, Talk radio presenter Kevin O’Sullivan spoke of the

“infestation of thousands and thousands of illegal migrants in our country”.

Ofcom decided after assessing it that there was no breach.

We know that similar remarks have been made by Reform politicians after ITV’s secret filming led to resignations. In normal life, public figures who make or are associated with inflammatory or hateful remarks face professional, social and organisational consequences; with Ofcom, don’t hold your breath. In fact, as its remit has expanded, Ofcom’s published investigations have shrunk; there are fewer and fewer, and long delays. In 2019 there were 142 editorial cases, but by 2025 there were just 36, and decisions in recent years have been glacially slow.

How can Ofcom justify this steep decline and abject lack of urgency, accountability and transparency? Why do these channels feel so able to act with impunity? There is a clear pattern, and unless Ofcom imposes meaningful sanctions to prevent recurrence, it is just going to happen again and again. Clearly, Ofcom is not doing its job. It is not feared and breaches just seem blatant.

Ofcom was once an arm’s length regulator, but it has turned into a curious mixture of free-speech warrior, drum-banger for those lot and passive complaints handler. It often says, “People didn’t complain in the official form, so we are not doing anything about it.” It has defended at all costs channels that style themselves as disruptors but are actually echo chambers lazily putting out the same old content.

In April 2022, Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was interviewed by a husband-and-wife couple of his Back-Bench MPs. It all looked very cosy, but Ofcom took no action. Even when Ofcom found that an interview with the Chancellor on the same show—they had a regular show at the time—breached its due impartiality rules, as the programme had failed to present an appropriately wide range of alternative perspectives, no fine was issued. What is the point when broadcasters know that there will be no consequences?

What is Ofcom’s answer to all this? We had the new chair, Sir Ian Cheshire, before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee the other day, and he said that Ofcom’s critics should

“set up a left-wing version of GB News.”

What? That fails to understand the problem. I must say that Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala, the original founders of Ofcom, did not like the way they were named in that response. Sir Ian said, “Stewart and Chris should make their own left-wing show,” but they have never been political. They just want the truth—they want proper journalism—and they had genuine criticisms. Parliament did not legislate for due impartiality to be achieved by balancing one unbalanced broadcaster with another—one partisan with another—so that response smacks of ignorance and arrogance.

I hate to say I told you so, but when Lord Michael Grade did his pre-appointment hearing for chair of Ofcom—I have been on the Committee for that long—I said that his outspoken opinions on the BBC and other culture war issues meant that he was politically partisan. He went through and served his term, and now we have this other one, who is described by the Financial Times as a “City grandee”. He is on £120,000 a year for a three-day week—not bad, is it, to get work like that? He told the pre-appointment hearing that he would take these criticisms seriously, and that he would make it his priority, but like all these regulators, once he got his feet under the table, he appears to have gone native. He is reinforcing Dame Melanie Dawes, the chief executive officer—who is apparently on half a million pounds and is reportedly connected to The Daily Telegraph—whose usual standard answer is, “I do not accept that.” That was the answer that we got the other week, sadly.

Sir Ian said he would look at the blurred distinction between news and current affairs, which is how GB News gets around the requirements. He said that he would make it an immediate priority. He made all these solemn promises to the Committee, but none of it has happened. In fact, the remarks suggest that he does not understand the regulatory framework that he is responsible for overseeing. He said that he would look into politicians presenting shows. I had to say back to him that if a leftie GB News happened and it was as unbalanced as the real thing, I would be the first to complain.

This is not about left and right; it is about right and wrong. Andrew Neil, whom the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, resigned from GB News, describing it as the “biggest mistake” of his 50-year career, because of its descent into bizarre conspiracy theories and its love for the nuttier end of politics. He is no leftie, but he is a journalist, and journalism seems to have been lost in all this lazy opinion stuff that is pumped out.

Ofcom—what is it good for? It is supposed to be a communications watchdog, but it feels overly reactive, ultimately pointless and toothless. Why does this matter? Like everyone in the Chamber, I have been deluged by correspondence from constituents who want a social media ban, so it is all the more important that Ofcom effectively regulates the broadcast world. This is not Fleet Street; these are public service broadcasters. Ofcom should create a safe space for the young online and offline, because the two coalesce and overlap to a great extent. Young people get their news from feeds. Our news media environment has changed—it is far beyond the “One”, the “Six O’Clock” and the “News at Ten”. When Ofcom was first conceived in 2003, social media was not even a glimmer in anybody’s eye. Nobody would have imagined it. The internet still made a noise—that sort of funny sound. In the years since we have seen the influence of traditional broadcasters disrupted by online news and the two things are intertwined.

Ofcom must pull its socks up. There is no incompatibility between freedom of expression and impartiality, but the Ofcom-created rule seems to have been fabricated by some of the right-wing elements within it: under the spurious divide between news and current affairs, a politician cannot read out the news but they can front a current affairs show. In the Boris Johnson era, that divide seems to have been retrofitted on top of the Communications Act in order to green-light GB News, Talk radio and their ilk. They are not public service broadcasters by any stretch of the imagination.

For Ofcom to effectively function, there must be rules and consequences when the rules are broken. Ofwat has abjectly failed because it allows the cowboys of Thames Water to leave a burst water pipe through the summer in my seat, put in place a hosepipe ban for the rest of us, and put a fee on our bills. Ofsted was named in a coroner’s report as a factor in the suicide of a headteacher. Ofcom too is a regulator with which we can find a multitude of faults—maybe its brief has become too big. Presumably my hon. Friend the Minister will know more, but it is probably unfashionable for Governments to create more players on the regulatory playing field. Even so, the world has changed and regulation must keep up. In the meantime, it would appear that the woefully inadequate Ofcom is a regulator that is simply not regulating.

15:46

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate. We have heard some very good speeches that demonstrate the sprawling remit of Ofcom. As has been eloquently demonstrated by everyone who has spoken in the debate, the size of that remit is, to a large extent, the reason Ofcom is not proving very effective as a regulator. Whether we are talking about Royal Mail, broadband access, the landline switchover, online safety or broadcasting standards, too many people feel that they are being let down. Too often Ofcom appears slow to act, reluctant to use the powers available to it, and unable to provide the robust enforcement that the public expect.

I want to focus most of my comments on one of Ofcom’s largest failings: its failure to protect children from online harms. By Ofcom’s own admission last week, there has been no significant change in the severity or frequency of instances in which children encounter harmful content since the children’s safety duties came into force in July 2025.

Each hon. Member in this debate has heard deeply distressing accounts from constituents, including parents, carers and young people, about the damage caused by content that young people should not have seen online. It is striking that young people themselves often understand the problem better than those who regulate it. In evidence given to Ofcom for its report on the Online Safety Act, one 16-year-old said:

“we need the algorithms to recognise how dangerous these things are, because it only pushes things for them to go viral, it doesn’t consider the safety.”

That young person has identified the heart of the problem: left unregulated, social media companies will continue to prioritise engagement and profit through addictive algorithms. That is why we Liberal Democrats called for a parliamentary review within the first six months of the Act, and why the Government must urgently implement film-style age ratings for harmful social media platforms, which should consider not only the content but the risks posed by addictive algorithms, in order to better protect children online.

I am conscious that Ofcom today announced its recommendations for age verification ahead of the under-16s social media ban, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Although Ofcom has set out options including banking-based checks, photo ID or digital ID, it has made it clear that the onus is on social network providers to come up with their own solutions and comply.

Keeping young people safe online is essential and we cannot do that if we expose their personal information to big US tech platforms. Leaving social media companies free to choose their own methods incentivises the most intrusive checks, undermining trust in much-needed online safety regulations. As I will set out, the problem with Ofcom allowing social media companies to choose how they comply is that Ofcom does not appear to have the resource to audit companies where risk is identified and then actively enforce high standards. We cannot squander the opportunity to make the internet safer through poor implementation. Ofcom must go back to the drawing board and ensure that age verification is effective, proportionate and privacy preserving, because the reality is simple: social media tech giants do not care about our children’s safety; they only care about how they can profit from them. If we do not act, they certainly will not.

The response to the Grok scandal last year illustrates that perfectly. When Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, was used to generate sexualised images of children and women, we Liberal Democrats called for an immediate temporary business disruption order to shut down the site and protect victims. Instead, Ofcom’s investigation dragged on—amazingly, it remains ongoing to this day—while the material continued to circulate. Action was taken only when public outrage forced the platform itself to act. That raises an important question: if Ofcom was unwilling to use its strongest powers in that case, when will it use them? I am not confident that Ofcom has learnt from the incident or that it would use a business disruption order if a similar incident occurred again.

Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has the power to impose financial penalties of up to £18 million, or 10% of global turnover. Ofcom publishes press releases announcing headline fines against non-compliant platforms, but it does not publish data showing how much of those fines is actually collected. It was only during a recent Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee session that Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, revealed that of the 11 fines issued since March last year for breaching the Act, only two have been paid. If nine out of 11 fines remain unpaid, that raises serious questions about Ofcom’s effectiveness and suggests that fines are not acting as a meaningful deterrent.

That is why we Liberal Democrats believe that Ofcom should publish clear data not just on how many fines are issued, but on how many have actually been collected and how long enforcement really takes. Parliament and the public deserve to know whether these powers are working in practice. When platforms facilitate the creation or circulation of illegal material, including child sexual abuse material, Ofcom must use all its powers to stop that material from spreading and immediately issue a business disruption order to shut down the platform.

Those concerns about enforcement extend to broadcasting regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) laid out. When MPs and members of the public write to Ofcom flagging systemic breaches of the broadcasting code, including racist language, disinformation and partial coverage, they are routinely met with a refusal to open a formal investigation. That was also the case when my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) —the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—asked for an investigation into coverage by GB News, a broadcaster that is repeatedly let off the hook despite clear breaches of the broadcasting code.

As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said, the chair of Ofcom, while giving evidence to the DCMS Committee last week, suggested that a left-leaning alternative could combat GB News—you couldn’t make it up. That is such a problematic statement, which not only acknowledges that GB News is not politically impartial, but reveals that Ofcom does not believe that the solution is to regulate properly. If a broadcaster is failing to meet standards of due impartiality, the regulator’s job is not to hope that another broadcaster can balance them out; the regulator’s job is actually to regulate. We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our Britain into a version of Trump’s America, but I fear that is the way we seem to be going.

Misinformation and partial news must be tackled, so either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them. At a time when misinformation spreads rapidly with alarming consequences, and trust in our political system is increasingly fragile, effective and impartial regulation has never been more important.

In conclusion, we Liberal Democrats have serious concerns about Ofcom’s ability to enforce its regimes overseeing the Online Safety Act and the broadcasting code, as well as a number of other examples that been referenced, such as Royal Mail, broadband and the landline switchover. We believe that the Government must take those concerns seriously and assess options to increase Ofcom’s effectiveness.

I am very happy to echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for a review. We think that options could include splitting Ofcom into two regulators: one to regulate online and broadcasting content, and the other to regulate communications infrastructure. They could also include the creation of a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, which we have been calling for. The public deserve a regulator that acts swiftly, enforces consistently, puts safety first and instils trust in the public.

15:55

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing today’s debate. This is a really important topic, and it is clear how passionate she is about it. I really enjoyed her speech and I would love to see her on GB News, creating some of the balance that she was talking about. In fact, a number of Members here would contribute to that important balance, so I look forward to seeing them all on there at some point.

Before I get into some of the detail that has been raised today in compelling contributions, it is important to recognise Ofcom’s extraordinarily broad remit. From broadcasting and telecommunications to postal services and online safety, it regulates communication services that impact British consumers every day. Independent regulation in all those spheres is important. It is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether Ofcom is delivering on its statutory duties and is well placed to take on the additional responsibilities allocated to it, particularly given how important they are. Across Ofcom’s considerable remit, we often hear the same concerns: the regulator is too slow to act, too reluctant to intervene and too often unable to secure meaningful improvements. We have heard that across the board today.

Broadcasting is the area of regulation that Ofcom is best known for. Ofcom’s broadcasting code requires that news be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality, and significant mistakes should normally be acknowledged and corrected promptly. It also makes it clear that, save in exceptional circumstances, politicians must not act as newsreaders, interviewers or reporters in news programmes. Those are important safeguards. The public should be able to trust that the news on their screens is being reported accurately and without editorial bias.

That said, there is a really important nuance: “due impartiality” was never intended to mean the rigid allocation of equal airtime for every point of view. Ofcom’s rules recognise different programme formats and the importance of context. The exchange of different opinions and political views is both legitimate and healthy when done in line with the code. But rather unsurprisingly, Ofcom finds itself walking a fine line. The regulator must be robust when rules are broken, but without becoming so restrictive that broadcasters shy away from difficult subjects or controversial opinions, and those rules must always be applied consistently, regardless of a broadcaster’s political outlook. The perception that the rules are enforced inconsistently can be as damaging to public confidence as a lack of enforcement.

Ofcom says that it closed nearly 66,000 broadcasting complaints last year and found breaches in 14 cases, following 25 investigations. Those figures demonstrate activity, but tell us much less about whether the final decisions were fair or effective. Interestingly, I can find no record of Ofcom issuing fines where politicians have been involved in reading the news, despite the code’s clear position on that and some high-profile examples. I therefore ask the Minister, bearing in mind the regulator’s operational independence, whether the Government are satisfied with its regulatory performance in respect of broadcast. Are they satisfied that Ofcom, in performing its duties, strikes the right balance between impartiality, accuracy and freedom of expression?

I turn now to online safety. Ofcom’s responsibilities are growing rapidly, particularly when it comes to protecting children from online harms. That is an immensely important area. We will all be aware that Ofcom has reported under section 63 of the Online Safety Act 2023 that it found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful content during the first nine months after the new children’s safety duties took effect. This is an early measure, and we know that some platforms have introduced stronger age checks since; none the less, that initial report is disappointing and concerning. I hope the Minister will update us today on her view on the recommendations in the report and what further actions the Government are considering, if any.

Enforcement in the online sphere can be incredibly challenging. Giving evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this month, Ofcom’s chief executive said that only two out of 11 online safety fines had been paid. In the case of 4chan, it was fined £520,000 in March for breaches, including failing to introduce effective age checks to stop children accessing pornography. Its US lawyer responded to demands for payment with an image of an AI-generated hamster. Unfortunately, that example shows how difficult it can be to enforce against overseas entities, putting Ofcom in an extremely difficult position. I would be grateful if the Minister gave her views on the type of enforcement action that should be taken in these difficult cases, such as last-resort business disruption powers, and whether she would like to see those powers used more.

Let me turn to social media restrictions for under-16s, an area where the Government have done the right thing, albeit belatedly and following huge pressure from the Opposition and the public. Ofcom is expected to oversee compliance here and has acknowledged the challenges posed by circumvention, including through VPNs, and told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it will need additional resources for the task. I hope the Minister can respond to that directly by outlining what assessment the Government have made of Ofcom’s staffing, technical expertise and current enforcement capacity. What lessons are being learned from Ofcom’s work on existing online safety duties, and what measurable outcomes will the House be able to refer to in 12 months from now to ultimately judge how effectively Ofcom has discharged this important new function?

I mentioned Ofcom’s extremely broad remit at the outset, and it would be entirely remiss of me, in my capacity as the Member for Reigate, not to acknowledge its responsibility as the regulator for postal deliveries. Royal Mail is ultimately responsible for running its network, but it is painfully clear to my constituents that repeated fines from Ofcom have done very little to secure the reliable service that we should all expect. I recall a Government Member decrying Ofcom as “utterly toothless” on postal services when we considered this issue earlier in the year. He is certainly not alone in taking that view, as we have heard many times over in Members’ contributions today. When the Minister speaks, I hope we will hear about how we can ensure that sanctions from Ofcom meaningfully translate into more letters arriving on time. Otherwise, really, what is the point?

Before I finish, I want to draw attention to the Public Accounts Committee report of 11 September, which identified the critical role that regulators such as Ofcom play in ensuring that vulnerable customers and those struggling financially are better supported. Its report specifically recommends that regulators need to do more to ensure take-up of discounted social tariffs and other support for consumers on lower incomes. Fewer than 9% of eligible broadband customers are on social tariffs and only a third of customers are aware that they even exist. More urgency from Ofcom could create scope for a more joined-up approach that would avoid customers in vulnerable circumstances having to repeat personal information to multiple service providers. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the recommendations in that report.

That final point brings me back to the purpose of today’s debate. Whether it is ensuring impartial news, children’s safety online, reliable postal deliveries or affordable broadband, Ofcom’s effectiveness has real consequences for the people we represent. Its operational independence is important, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability. As we continue to expand the regulator’s responsibilities, I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government can measure its success and what more can be done to ensure that Ofcom delivers the improvements that the public rightly expect.

16:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again this week, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). I do not think we have faced each other across the Chamber, so it is great to see her here today.

The range of issues raised today shows how important Ofcom’s work is to people’s everyday lives, whether that means getting a phone signal, staying connected, having a broadband connection that works, knowing that their children are safer when they pick up a phone or go online, or, of course, having their post delivered. Ofcom’s decisions affect people all across our country. As the UK’s independent regulator for the communication industries, Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promoting competition where appropriate. Ofcom helps to ensure that people can access reliable communication services, that broadcasters meet appropriate standards and, increasingly, that people, particularly children, are protected from online harm.

Given that Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been wider or more significant, it is understandable that today’s debate has covered a number of topics, and I will attempt to speak to each of them in turn. I am pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety, and I will relay the issues raised in this debate to him directly.

As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, broadcasting is probably what Ofcom is most well known for, and that is where I will begin. Broadcasting regulation has existed in the UK for 100 years. Since its creation in 2003, Ofcom has had the vital role of regulating the UK’s broadcast media, helping to ensure that TV and radio audiences are protected from harmful material. Through legislation, Parliament requires Ofcom to draft and keep up to date the broadcasting code, which sets out clear rules and guidance including the protection of children and ensuring that the broadcast of news remains accurate and impartial. Through the Government’s media Green Paper, we are considering how to ensure that Ofcom continues to have the right powers to protect audiences and regulate TV services into the future. All Ofcom-licensed broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code and are Ofcom-regulated. When it comes to news, that means that news in whatever form is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. When broadcasters may have breached the broadcasting code, we of course expect Ofcom to investigate promptly without fear or favour.

I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to comment on ongoing cases, but a question was raised about politicians presenting television programmes. Ofcom’s broadcasting code sets out that politicians may not

“be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified.”

The Government have expressed concerns about the blurring of fact and polemic and about politicians presenting programmes that could reasonably be interpreted as news or current affairs. There is a clear rationale for strengthening these rules. We are currently considering a range of options to tackle this issue and will set out more information and a decision in due course.

I will take away the point that a couple of Members made about communication regarding complaints to Ofcom. A number of people gave examples of Members of Parliament writing to Ofcom and not feeling that they got an acceptable letter or communication back. I will certainly take that to the Media Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about prominence measures—[Interruption.] I thought she was going to intervene; I am about to answer some of her questions. Our “Watch this space” Green Paper sets out two distinct prominence regimes to safeguard UK media online. The first is prominence for trustworthy news. In an era of infinite online information, quality journalism is vital to holding power, including the Government, to account. We want social media platforms to make reporting from high-quality news providers easy to discover. This is not about censorship; it is about defending a free, pluralistic press across the political spectrum. We have not finalised the criteria for trustworthy news and will continue to engage with the sector as we develop proposals.

The second is prominence for wider public service media content on video sharing platforms. From children’s programmes to culture, that content reflects our national story. Our preference remains for sector-led, voluntary agreements on fair commercial terms. The consultation closed on 31 August. Officials are currently analysing the responses, and no final decisions have been made on the regulators.

A number of Members spoke about postal services. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is an independent regulator responsible for postal services. That includes regulating Royal Mail as the UK’s designated universal service provider, and mandates that major parcel companies including Amazon Logistics, DPD, DHL, Evri, Parcelforce and Yodel must have clear complaints procedures, accessible contact channels, defined timelines and trained staff. The Government do not have a role in its regulatory decisions on postal services.

The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for too long. The Minister for the Future of Work was in the Chamber earlier this week during a debate on Royal Mail performance —indeed, I think an hon. Member said that there have been three such debates this week. We value Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability for the outcomes it delivers. Business Ministers recently met the regulator, and they agreed that more needs to be done to tackle persistent service issues. Ofcom is currently concluding its investigation into the company’s 2025-26 performance. We will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail to ensure that our constituents receive the service they are entitled to.

A number of questions were put to me on additional powers for Ofcom. The Government expect Ofcom to use the full range of its existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal services. The Secretary of State reaffirmed the importance of Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator in an appearance at the Business, Innovation Science and Trade Committee on 20 October. He was clear that the Government would be pragmatically considering any future requests for additional powers where they are needed.

[Vikki Slade]

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.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly interesting point, and I will certainly reflect that to the relevant Department. She will appreciate that I cannot be drawn on even the creative policy ideas that she puts to me today, but she has put that on the record, and I will make sure that the relevant Department hears about it.

Online safety is one of the defining issues of our time. The internet has changed how we live, learn and connect, often for the better, but there are clear challenges and dangers that come alongside that. I would like to quote the Secretary of State on this issue:

“This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have upended society. But what is unique to this moment is that that technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere – so I want to be clear that there is a central role for government in shaping that technology for good.”

Through the Online Safety Act, Parliament gave Ofcom the responsibility of delivering that, and it is right that this House asks how it is progressing. The Government have asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and present it to Parliament so that its priorities and outcomes can be properly scrutinised. Additionally, Sir Ian Cheshire, the Ofcom chair, is reviewing Ofcom’s enforcement capability, and we will consider his findings carefully. If more changes are needed, we will not hesitate to act.

Ofcom’s role will grow further with our decision to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s—a decision shaped by the more than 116,000 responses to our consultation. Enforcing both the Act and the ban must be Ofcom’s top priority, including robust action against circumvention. The first social media regulations will be laid before Parliament by the end of the year. I am sure that the Media Minister would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further, and particularly the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, who raised a number of points on this. I will ask him to reach out to every Member who has attended the debate, and, if Members would like to, I am sure he would be happy to meet them.

Moving on to issues around telecoms, there was a specific question on the closure of the PSTN. That is on track for 31 January 2027. Hon. Members spoke about the difficulties that some of their constituents face in getting a reliable broadband connection, and they are right to raise that. National coverage matters, and I have seen that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s regulatory regime has facilitated significant investment and growth in the fixed telecoms market. As of January 2026, gigabit broadband coverage stands at 88%. Ofcom’s telecoms access review, published in March this year, provides a stable regulatory framework for the coming years, and continues to support competition and investment across the sector. This infrastructure is critical to households and businesses alike and underpins the delivery of essential public services.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised a number of concerning issues in her constituency around connectivity, particularly around rural broadband. I will ask officials to look into the specific points she raised. The Government are committed to ensuring at least 99% gigabit broadband coverage by 2032, including in rural areas.

[Dr Huq]

I am grateful to and have a lot of time for the Minister—she has helped me sort many constituency issues. The issue of broadband is not just a rural thing. In my seat, Ealing Central and Acton, which is in London in zones 2 and 3, we have appalling broadband. We have been told that fast fibre will be rolled out, and it would be great if the Minister looked into that. Also, is the distinction between news and current affairs being looked at? It is something that seems to have been invented in the last 10 years for GB News.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will reflect my hon. Friend’s second question to the Media Minister, but she is absolutely right that broadband is not just a rural issue. When I was the shadow Media Minister, I did a visit to central London that explained some of the issues around broadband connectivity. We want the whole of the UK to be connected.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of scam calls and texts. I have seen tragic and difficult cases of that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s work to tackle scam calls and fraudulent text messages is an important part of its consumer protection role. It has introduced measures to block calls originating from abroad from using UK mobile numbers and to disrupt scam mobile messages. Those will come into effect in 2027. Alongside the Government’s 2025 telecoms fraud charter and wider fraud strategy, those measures will help to protect consumers. Of course, criminals continue to adapt their tactics, and we expect Ofcom to continue using its powers effectively as the threat evolves. The hon. Lady gave a specific example from the USA; I will raise that with the Media Minister and ask officials to write to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke in detail and with great experience about the issue of spectrum. Spectrum policy should not be considered in isolation from the Government’s wider objectives for growth, resilience and national capability. The Government sets the strategic direction for spectrum principally through the statement of strategic priorities, while Ofcom independently carries out its statutory functions. Our approach is clear: spectrum management should support investment, competition and innovation while helping to ensure the connectivity and services that the UK relies on are resilient. We keep both our approach to spectrum and the wider regulatory framework under review to ensure that they remain fit for a rapidly changing communications market. My hon. Friend asked a number of other questions; I will make sure she gets a letter from the Media Minister—he is going to be busy following this debate.

It has been a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this important issue. In conclusion, Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been broader or more important. From supporting growth and investment to promoting competition, protecting consumers, strengthening network resilience and implementing online safety regulation, it occupies a central place in the UK’s regulatory landscape. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate and to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for securing it.

16:16

[Vikki Slade]

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.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role and effectiveness of Ofcom.

16:17

Sitting adjourned.