Rural Mobile Connectivity

Debate between Mims Davies and Bradley Thomas

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on being persistent and finally securing this very important debate.

Few phrases in modern Britain ring as hollow as “world-class connectivity”. Speaking plainly, rural mobile phone connectivity in this country is not merely patchy or inconsistent; in some places, it is so poor that the advertised service bears no resemblance to reality. There are areas in which actual service levels are hundreds of times worse than advertised—that is not a rounding error, or the result of momentary network congestion. It is a difference between promise and performance that is so vast that it would be comic if it were not so economically corrosive.

Take Worcestershire, for example. It is a rural county, with lots of villages, small towns and industrious small businesses. There are farms and villages where the coverage map glows reassuringly in bright corporate colours, but the lived reality is far too often just a single bar if you stand at the upstairs window, facing north and holding your phone aloft like some kind of digital divining rod. We have already heard about how the River Severn Partnership in Worcestershire was a beneficiary of this. Quite innovatively, local councils stuck gadgets on the bin lorries that went up and down every single road, particularly the rural roads, and realised what we probably all suspect: how terrible the service is. In parts of Worcestershire, the mobile phone signal is around 900 times worse than the mobile phone operators claim.

We could forgive the odd dropped call. After all, rural topography presents challenges—there are hills, and trees are inconveniently organic. What cannot be forgiven, though, is the persistent gulf between what is claimed and what is delivered. It is the same with broadband; we hear broadband providers advertise speeds of up to 80 megabits per second, but the reality of what many of my constituents experience is very different. Those advertised figures are in the realm of fiction. This is not just anecdotal grumbling from the shires; a survey by the National Farmers Union has painted a sobering picture, with 21% of respondents reporting broadband speeds under 10 megabits per second in 2026. This is at a time when a single video could devour bandwidth instantly. What my constituents want is the ability to consume data and make voice calls at the same time. I cannot stress enough how sick and tired I am of hearing from mobile phone companies that everyone is just consuming data. As the traditional telephone service is switched off, constituents—particularly those living in rural areas—are increasingly reliant on the ability to make voice calls.

The lived reality for a business in rural Worcestershire attempting to submit mandatory forms online to a regulator or placing an order, is that they must drive to the nearest town to do so. Businesses cannot reliably place orders or process card payments. As banks close in our towns and villages, people are shifting or being pushed towards more online digital services, so it is crucial that we have the mobile connectivity to back that up. If I may say so, there is also a little bit of cultural condescension at work. Rural Britain is far too frequently romanticised as a place of bucolic tranquillity; it is that, but it demands parity with urban Britain at the same time. What does that mean? It means that we want a reliable mobile phone signal, so that we can drive down the road on a short journey without it cutting out, and if we need to receive a call from a loved one, a relative or perhaps a GP, we can have certainty that that call will come through.

Coverage maps have been drawn with a particularly optimistic crayon, and the problem with advertised speeds being hundreds of times better than reality is not merely technical; it also erodes trust. Quite often, those conditions are laboratory conditions that do not bear any resemblance to reality, so I invite the mobile phone companies to come and do a very thorough inspection across Bromsgrove and the villages.

[Mims Davies]

I concur with every word that my hon. Friend is saying, particularly around the challenges in national parks, where connectivity can be more difficult. If I may, I will take him back to his point about callbacks from GPs or people working remotely, differently and flexibly. Missing that callback is a real problem for anyone, but it can be particularly serious for people in rural areas.

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Constituents, particularly older residents, have contacted me because they have missed out on crucial calls from GPs and other supporting services that they require. It is about the safety and wellbeing of our constituents as much as it is about connectivity and the economy.

In the limited time that I have, I have a few points that I implore the Government to focus on. First, transparency must improve. That means bolstering regulatory requirements for the mobile phone companies to advertise speeds that are realistic, not theoretical and based on laboratory conditions. Secondly, it is not just about population coverage, but geographic coverage, which must carry greater regulatory weight. Britain is not composed solely of cities. Land matters, and the people who steward it and rely on these mobile phone connections matter. That means that the Government should give serious consideration to rural roaming. Finally, infrastructure sharing should be pursued with seriousness to ensure that mobile phone coverage across the country, but particularly across Bromsgrove and the villages, is as robust as it can be.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Debate between Mims Davies and Bradley Thomas

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Member. The examples she cites highlight the situation perfectly. The Government have failed to consider that the capacity is not there. We have already seen, in the few months since this Parliament began, several debates highlighting issues of SEND capacity.

Another mother wrote to me to outline the benefit that independent schools can have for children with SEND needs:

“We moved our autistic child to a small independent school and the transformation was immediate. Classes are small and quiet, and the school is very nurturing and family oriented. It has been wonderful to see her blossom and slowly get more and more involved in school life. We would not have chosen for our daughter to go to private school but there was no suitable state provision available. We are paying a significant amount of money to be able to do this. Adding VAT on top feels like we are being punished twice for having a child that doesn’t fit into the state system, either in mainstream or specialist schools.”

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Nobody here is not interested in a positive educational experience for all children in all our constituencies, in all establishments. My own youngsters have enjoyed brilliant learning in both private and state schools, while one is currently in an independent school. Would my hon. Friend agree that the heart of this policy of bringing in taxation on education is stoking division, creating harm to aspiration, and stopping the sharing of facilities and opportunity? It is exemplified by the Education Secretary’s proclamation on social media. Despite the impact on jobs and community harm, the Government still want to introduce this policy.

[Bradley Thomas]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The comments made by the Education Secretary on Twitter over the weekend epitomise the way in which the mask of this Government is slipping—socialism is revealing its true face—and how reprehensible the policy is.

Adjacent to SEND schools, we must consider faith education. This education tax will make independent faith schooling unaffordable for many families, hurting the 370,000 pupils who attend independent faith schools in England according to Department for Education figures. It is important that the House notes that fees at those schools are frequently below the independent school average, and sometimes below state per-pupil funding levels. Often the schools have a suggested fee, but the community supports those who cannot afford the full fee by themselves.