Ofcom

Vikki Slade 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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.