Ofcom

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.