Richard Quigley
MP for Isle of Wight West · Labour · United Kingdom
“Often, the island’s challenges are treated as serious enough to be acknowledged, but not urgent enough for Government intervention. I believe, however, that deprivation and isolation in places such as the Isle of Wight have reached a point where we can no longer pretend that the challenges are a hidden or unknown phenomenon.”
“The hon. Member, my neighbour, is correct. He will not be surprised to know that I have already raised the issue at least once, if not several times, with the potential incoming Prime Minister. It is not just islanders’ wallets that are impacted, but our council budgets, public services and ultimately the sustainability of the island.”
“What is great about securing this debate is that we can highlight in glorious technicolour the deprivation faced by coastal communities, and how that is simply not seen as urgent, visible or politically fashionable to champion by those meant to represent us.”
“That helps to explain but not justify how the Isle of Wight’s two constituencies can rank among the most deprived and left behind in the country on some measures, yet still miss out on funding opportunities such as Pride in Place.”
“The truth is that being an island or a coastal area comes with unavoidable costs. Even when positive changes are made nationally, they often take longer to reach us, if they reach us at all.”
“Taken together, those figures demonstrate a community with clear and pressing needs, but one whose deprivation is too often obscured by neighbouring affluence, leaving it overlooked by the very funding formulas designed to help those who need them the most. I know that it has become something of a running joke that, along with my hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 256 lines we hold for Richard Quigley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“You don’t play freely in the world—you withdraw from it. Trust feels dangerous, friendships feel risky, and when every day is lived in the shadow of survival, confidence has no chance to bloom, nor your dreams any chance to grow. And in the classroom where children would feel free to learn and explore, that same fear follows you. Concentration becomes impossible, achievement feels out of reach, and you fall behind long before anyone realises, you’re not struggling with the work, you’re struggling with the trauma. And, like so many children, I became part of a cycle that I never chose. After watching my mother suffer abuse, I unknowingly followed the same pattern. My daughter was born into a home where she, too, witnessed fear, control, and harm—things no child should ever see.”
“Further research by Women’s Aid shows that extended stays in refuge often disrupt education, school and routines. Many still face significant barriers to securing a school place after moving, because their mothers often have to cross local authority boundaries to stay safe. For those children, safety often comes at the cost of stability. I am deeply grateful to have spoken with abuse survivors, including one of my constituents whose experience illustrates why prevention is so vital. As both a child victim and later a victim in her own relationship, she would have benefited enormously from early intervention. She has bravely agreed for me to share her story today. The following words are hers: “Before I had even started primary school, domestic abuse had already shaped me. When home isn’t safe, fear becomes your earliest teacher.”
“That Act was a vital step forward. It diagnosed the problem we face, but it did not provide an adequate cure. Paragon, which does incredible work in my constituency of Isle of Wight West, told me: “As children are now being recognised in their own right as victims of domestic abuse, we are seeing an increase in referrals for support. We have had no increase in funding to provide additional capacity to support children and young people and as a result we have a short waitlist in place. Waiting for this crucial support is not ideal.” This reality is grimly reflected in the national picture. Women’s Aid’s “On Track” data reveals that there are more children than adults living in refuge spaces, but accessing a refuge does not mean that life returns to normal for those children.”
“As many will know, I have tabled it in honour of the 19 children killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse between 2015 and 2024. Their stories are solemn reminders of the danger of placing an outdated emphasis on parental contact above all else. I recognise that there have been important strides in recent months, and I want to sincerely commend the work of my Government in repealing the presumption of parental contact in family courts and introducing a new police duty to notify schools of domestic abuse incidents. Those are significant steps forward, but we cannot stop here. While I have rightly praised this Government, I also want to acknowledge the previous Government for introducing the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We are here today because, for the first time, children were recognised as victims in their own right in that legislation.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse. You will be pleased to know what a marvellous pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I would like to begin where we typically end our debates in Westminster Hall, and that is by thanking all hon. Members present. I am well aware that, on a topic such as this, what often compels people to speak is painful lived experience; so I sincerely thank everyone who has come here today, whether to bravely share their own experience or to represent the children in their constituency who otherwise do not have a voice in this place. It is appreciated and truly important. This debate unfortunately stems from deep tragedy and systemic failure.”
“The political will is there, and I believe that we have the right voices in charge to enact the change that we need and that our children deserve, but we must take decisive action to stop this silent crisis from escalating into a catastrophe. We owe it not only to survivors, but to the women and children who are no longer with us. Their stories cannot be in vain.”
“I therefore call on the Government to take the following actions: to amend the Children Act 1989 to reflect better the lived experience of children and young people affected by domestic abuse, and to embed our enhanced understanding of abuse, making it clear that coercive control constitutes harm to children; to publish a clear timeline for implementing the family court reforms recommended in the Ministry of Justice harm panel review of 2020; to roll out mandatory multi-agency training on domestic abuse across the family justice system; and to invest in the design and delivery of the violence against women and girls prevention programmes in schools and other educational settings.”
“Education and community support must play a central role in breaking the cycle of intergenerational abuse, empowering future generations to prevent harm, protect potential victims and stop abusers before they begin to engage in this behaviour.”
“There is very little I can add, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. That is a very important part of this debate, so I thank my hon. Friend sincerely. That survivor’s story is, heartbreakingly, just one among many that I know will echo across our communities. In the year ending March 2024, an estimated 1.8 million children in England were affected by domestic abuse. Although 70% of affected children have stated that they would seek support for domestic abuse, 61% state that they would not know where to go to find it. The Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls is noble, but we must ensure that every child is protected, that court-ordered safeguards are robust, and that trauma support for newly single parents is properly funded.”
“Some 50% of young people who access our child and adolescent mental health services say that they have witnessed domestic abuse. There is a clear moral and economic case to get this issue right. Women’s Aid estimates that support from specialist domestic abuse services can save the NHS well over £150,000 per survivor, which includes the cost of visits to A&E, hospital treatment and appointments with GPs and other professionals. Protecting children from domestic abuse is about not just safeguarding their present, but securing their future. Every child deserves a home that feels safe, not one that they fear to return to. Let us make sure that no child is left silently begging the clock to slow down. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse.”
“I sincerely thank the Minister for her response, for the steps that have already been taken by this Government to protect children from domestic abuse, and for the commencement of the Pathfinder programme in 2026 on the Isle of Wight. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions. As Women’s Aid reminds us, children do not just passively witness abuse; they absorb it. It becomes a weight that they carry every day, following them into school, into their friendships and, most damagingly, into adulthood. One survivor told me that, as a child, their Friday afternoons at school were not spent counting down to the weekend, like other kids; instead, they were silently begging the clock to slow down, dreading the moment they would have to go home and hoping that Monday would come back round quickly.”
“In just over 18 months, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust has prevented 65 young people from becoming homeless, returned 98 young people to full-time learning or apprenticeships, and moved 273 young people into paid employment. That is great work. Since I stood in this place five months ago, speaking on similar issues, we have come a long way. My team and I have convened a group of major employers on the island to ensure that we work alongside employers to provide work experience, training and good apprenticeships, which have become the Isle of Wight’s hallmark. Although I may be the first MP to offer T-levels, I sincerely hope I am not the last. NEETs are not inevitable; they are the product of missed chances and broken links between education and employment.”
“Around 65% of school leavers do not go to university, so why are we not focusing on vocational training and qualifications? We all know that we have a shortage of builders, plumbers and care workers—jobs that the country relies on. My team and I have focused our resources on looking at vocational training, education and employment. Many young people on the Isle of Wight do not feel that university is a place for them. Many do not feel the urge to leave the island for work, but feel that they have no choice. How do we support NEETs? The answer is that we stop them becoming NEETs in the first place. We provide clear, vocational routes for those who do not want to go to university, but want to learn a skilled trade. We create a ladder to good, well-paying jobs—and, crucially, a future on the Isle of Wight for those who want it.”
“What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate. Every generation says, “I’m glad I am not a child today.” That is often a cliché, but I am glad I am not a 16-year-old today trying to decide where my future lies, not least because we are forcing children to start choosing their future from the age of 11. That is because the route to university is so clear, that it is effectively a queue—a queue whose direction and length can be seen from the Moon. But for those who are not academic, there is no queue. We treat those not going to university like free-range chickens—“Just go and find something and please don’t bother us.” Those children often end up in low-paid and insecure work.”
“As an MP who represents an island that has a significant veteran community, with one in 10 homes in Isle of Wight West home to a veteran, I know how crucial and effective community relations funding is. Will the Minister commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to explore adapting successful Northern Ireland-GB initiatives such as the excellent connect funding, so that similar tailored support can be delivered on the Isle of Wight to ensure that our veterans receive the recognition and assistance that they deserve?”
“T3. As Members all know by now, the Isle of Wight is a great place to live, work and learn, but it is not just getting ourselves across the Solent that is a problem, but exporting our green energy under it. Of the three subsea cables connecting us to the grid, two are at capacity and the third is dedicated to a power station that only runs for a few hours a month. I am grateful to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks for its engagement so far, but will the Minister meet me, SSEN and the Isle of Wight council so that we can find a way to export our energy and unlock the Isle of Wight’s green future?”
“I am genuinely intrigued as to whether free speech is deemed acceptable only if it is used to threaten the lives of refugees and not the Reform party leader.”
“It has been astonishing to watch some Members tie themselves in knots—on one hand decrying Britain under Labour as a return to Soviet-style communism, while on the other hand demanding the removal of the Oxford Union president-elect for comments made in a private group chat, not on social media. It seems that, for the right wing, free speech is not a two-way street: it is Schrödinger’s version of free speech. Nowhere has the hypocrisy and knot tying been clearer than in the case of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who rightly disavowed, and welcomed the imprisonment of, an individual who used social media to threaten his life, but readily platformed during his party conference a woman who said: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care...If that makes me racist, so be it”.”
“I find it genuinely astounding that parties such as Reform UK, and many in today’s Conservative party, espouse the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, yet are fundamentally unable to stomach it when individuals on their side of the political argument are held accountable for their words. My personal position —and, I think, that of many of my Labour colleagues—is clear: hate speech is hate speech; words have consequences. No matter whether someone passionately disagrees with someone else politically, if they use social media to call for the death of or harm to another, they should be held accountable by any means the law deems fit. Regretfully, I do not believe that the same clarity exists on the Opposition Benches.”
“Something I taught my children from when they were very young was, “You are free to use your words, but you must be prepared to face the consequences of them.” People may think that writing an offensive post—which takes only seconds and is quickly forgotten—is inconsequential, but as we have seen over the past year, and especially in recent months, such words can have devastating effects. They can fuel radicalisation, target minority communities and make individuals feel unsafe in their own homes, schools and streets. Although some demand the right to speak without restraint, they ignore the reality that others lose their freedom to live without fear—a freedom that was hard fought for by those we pay tribute to on Armistice Day.”
“I will come as no surprise to you, Sir Roger, to hear me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship. I want to be transparent: I do not believe that the law has always got it right in these cases—there have been failures, and there must be room for scrutiny and reform. But I am compelled to speak in this debate because of the hypocrisy and double standards perpetuated by many on the Opposition Benches—those who brand themselves as defenders of free speech, yet who seem to confuse freedom of speech and freedom from consequence.”
“It is in fact one of the oldest principles in our democracy. Magna Carta, the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, states: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” That commitment to fairness and equality before the law is not just historical; it is foundational. Ultimately, if we in this Parliament believe that the law needs to change, we have the power and the responsibility to change it through the proper democratic process. Those who seek to twist justice, who argue that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said, should ask themselves this: are they defending the spirit of British democracy, or are they defending a warped version of it, shaped not by principle but by popularity on X?”
“No. My point is this: it is completely wrong to call for the death of the hon. Member for Clacton, just as it is completely wrong to call for hotels housing refugees to be burned down. In both cases, the law rightly intervened, and justice was served. What is deeply concerning is the warped suggestion that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said. That is not justice; it is politicisation. Our legal professionals are not the enemy. Our justice system, widely regarded as one of the foundational models of fairness and due process, is not the enemy. And our police, who enforce the law but do not create it, are not the enemy. We must defend the principle that the law applies equally to all, regardless of political affiliation, background or platform. That should not be controversial.”
“Following the work of the eating disorders all-party group, I was horrified to hear that 19-year-old Lilly Cliff, who suffers from anorexia, has been placed on an end-of-life care pathway, after Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS foundation trust obtained a Court of Protection ruling to withdraw her treatment. The decision directly contradicts guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the statement from the Minister for Care in September that eating disorders are not a terminal illness. Will the Prime Minister urgently review that case to ensure that Lilly and her family receive the support they need, and that Lilly is given every possible chance to recover and live, and remind all integrated care boards, the NHS and hospitals, that suffering from an eating disorder is not a terminal illness?”
“The Government’s pride in place programme presents a welcome opportunity for communities across the country to once again feel proud of where they live, especially after years of austerity and neglect under successive Conservative Governments. However, the Isle of Wight received none of that funding, which feels like an oversight, given the challenges our island faces, not least with cross-Solent transport. Will the Chancellor assure me that she is doing everything possible to ensure that islanders are not left behind and that they, too, can benefit from this programme and feel pride in our island once again?”
“But we should demand more, because this is about protecting the NHS, which will ultimately pick up the bill when those clinics fail, and it is about protecting families like Zoe’s from the grief of a tragic and unnecessary death. I thank the Minister for her engagement, and I am genuinely encouraged by the seriousness with which her Department has adopted the issue. Zoe’s family has said that they feel they have got further than ever before over the past weeks, and that they feel listened to. I thank the Minister very much for that, but this can only be the start, and whatever form Zoe’s law eventually takes, we must not stop until we get there.”
“If we combine them with specific melanoma training for all professionals who encounter skin lesions, and encourage GPs and others to take up that training, that approach could significantly improve early detection and reduce the need for costly and often unsuccessful late-stage cancer interventions. Cancer is not a place to cut corners. Although they are not mandatory, histology tests are already routine practice for benign moles and other lesions in both NHS and private dermatology alike. Zoe’s law would ensure that a similar safeguard is applied across the board, from NHS hospitals to private dermatologists and beauty clinics. That would demand more from the clinics that are currently the least regulated.”
“NHS doctors order these tests as a matter of routine, and many good private dermatologists insist on including a biopsy before agreeing to treatment in the first place. The tests are relatively cheap, with lab fees around £100. To put that into perspective, the cost of Zoe’s cancer treatment could have funded over 650 biopsies. Using state-of-the-art technology, we could go further. Trials are under way for handheld equipment that can test for melanoma by using artificial intelligence systems to analyse high-definition photographs of skin lesions. If those trials prove successful, the cost of Zoe’s treatment could have funded thousands of pre-treatment checks. The checks are cheap, immediate and, with proper training, could easily be deployed in beauty clinics and other non-medical environments.”
“We are not here today because Zoe’s family want to cast blame; we are here because Zoe’s family want to make sure that what happened to their daughter, their sister and their mother will never have to happen to anyone else again. The safeguard we are asking for is simple: that all healthcare providers must test the lesions they remove. This extra check—a “Zoe check”—would prevent tragedies like Zoe’s from occurring. Over the past months I have spoken with a range of doctors across the NHS and in the private sector, and reassuringly—although it is not mandated—what we are asking for is already standard practice in the NHS for GPs and dermatologists. To avoid that one in a 1,000 case, removed skintags, moles or blemishes, however harmless they look, are almost always sent for testing.”
“Zoe even paid for her mole to be tested after removal at the beauticians, yet it never was. There is no doubt that Zoe was failed by her GP, who sent her a letter of apology after learning of her diagnosis, and that Zoe was failed deeply by her beautician, who failed to recognise her cancer or even to send her mole for testing. Zoe’s concerns should never have been dismissed, she should never have been referred out of the NHS, and the mole, which was actually a melanoma, should never have been removed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has enacted Jess’s rule, meaning that on the third time of asking, Zoe’s concerns may have brought about a different outcome.”
“She then realised that the small mole on her back was the root of her cancer. Zoe died just 55 days after that diagnosis, and in those 55 days she had to try to explain to a five-year-old and a seven-year-old that mummy would soon not be coming home, and would instead become an angel. I do not bring that up purely to cause upset, but to emphasise Zoe’s outstanding bravery at such a young age in ensuring her boys were prepared for the unthinkable. Zoe had not ignored her symptoms; she did everything right. She visited her GP on three separate occasions asking that her mole be tested, yet she was told that her pain was caused by the mole rubbing against her jeans, and that she was too young for it to be clinically concerning. On her third visit, Zoe was told that if it bothered her that much, she should get her mole removed cosmetically.”
“Despite her age, Zoe made a remarkable impact on our community. She volunteered as a carer, and later trained to become a radiologist at St Mary’s hospital. That is what makes Zoe’s story so heartbreaking. While she was dedicating herself to caring for others, her own health concerns were repeatedly dismissed. On the morning of Zoe’s eventual diagnosis, she woke up in pain, but brushed off her concerns, telling her mum that she had been teaching her boys how to do roly-polies—which many Members will know is, as an adult, no mean feat—and must have hurt herself that way. But that evening Zoe was in such excruciating pain that she was taken to hospital where, upon being tested by her boss at St Mary’s, she was told that her liver was full of cancer. Doctors asked Zoe whether any moles on her body had been causing her concern.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Many of those present may not yet be familiar with the name Zoe Panayi. If they are, it is likely to be because of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who spoke about Zoe at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago. For Zoe’s family, the five years since her tragic death have meant that their daughter, sister, mother and friend has come to represent something far greater—a legacy that continues to grow and touch lives beyond their own. I welcome Charlie, Zoe’s brother, to Westminster Hall today. Zoe was like so many other 26-year-olds. She was a devoted mother to her two boys, a loyal friend to many across the island and a young woman full of promise.”
“I thank him for his commitment to this cause, and for the support and extremely generous amount of time that he has given me. We need to make this safeguard a reality so that what happened to Zoe is never repeated. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles.”
“That is a small step with a profound impact—one that could save lives, reduce the burden on the NHS and spare families unimaginable grief. The cost is not preventable: the technology exists and the reason is clear —cancer is not a place to cut corners. I know that all the contributions we have heard today mean such a lot to Zoe’s family, her brother Charlie, and mum Eileen watching at home. We must not forget the human tragedy behind this story: the children who have lost a mother, the family who have lost a sister and a daughter, and the community who have lost a friend. That is why Zoe’s law is so important. I urge the Department to continue working with Zoe’s family, with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who has shared so much of his own journey, making such a difference.”
“I thank the Minister for her remarks. I do not think anyone would question her passion and commitment to this cause. I thank her for previously sharing her own diagnosis. It is important that people understand that cancer can affect anybody. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—and it would not be a debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) making some contribution. Zoe Panayi did everything right. She sought help and she trusted the system, and yet the safeguards that should have protected her did not. That is why this debate matters. Zoe’s law is not about blame; it is about prevention. It is about making sure that every mole removed is tested.”
“T8. I welcome the changes in the GP booking system, but in many cases it is still very difficult to obtain a GP appointment on the Isle of Wight. A large factor in that is the difficulty of recruiting GPs to the island. Will the Minister assure me that he will investigate all options for improving GP recruitment to coastal, rural and island communities, like mine?”
“The UK is committed to growing our wind energy manufacturing capacity, but this requires investment in innovation to develop the next generation of products that could be made in the UK, using expertise that exists in places like my constituency of Isle of Wight West. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to provide the funding to not only create jobs but provide sovereign ownership of blade technology and development in the UK, so that we become a true energy superpower?”
“The Government were elected with a phenomenal majority, winning places we never thought possible—including my own constituency of Isle of Wight West—on a platform of meaningful change. If we do not use this moment to do the right thing and acknowledge that children in mental health services need their parents more often than not, I fear that we may never get another chance.”
“In fact, the cross-party support I have received, including from the right hon. Member for Salisbury, reflects how uncontroversial they are. The Minister and I have had robust and constructive discussions on the matter, but I ask him to confirm that he will do everything in his power to ensure the following. Parents must not be shut out of their child’s care, as evidence shows that regular parental contact enhances care outcomes. The placement of children on adult mental health wards under the Mental Health Act must be limited strictly to exceptional circumstances, and practitioners must be actively compelled where appropriate to involve themselves in the development and delivery of a child’s care and treatment plan. We have a duty to ensure that the tragic circumstances surrounding Ruth’s death are never repeated.”
“I genuinely struggle to understand why our clinical consensus around mental health continues to support a model where already vulnerable children are isolated from their parents—the very people who know and love them most. Children on these wards are treated as wilful—they are not; they are children—and without empathy or sympathy. Many consultants we encountered opted not to apply the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Staff were poorly trained and in fear of psychiatrists, who ruled the roost and prevented people from speaking up. The private equity firms are focused not on long-term treatment but just on turning mental health into money. My amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill’s strengths, nor the important work undertaken by the Department.”
“That is the problem with NHS-funded private provision: even at £900 a night, the operators plead poverty. My wife and I have two vivid memories of our youngest being prised from us without any warning. We thought that was normal. Six months of nasogastric tube feeding—we thought that was normal. Illegal restraint so bad that it caused post-traumatic stress disorder—we thought that was normal. Forgetting to feed our daughter 11 times—we started to realise that that was normal, but not acceptable. Instead of wishing to improve its practice, the hospital has accused me of making this up. If a child is facing any other physical illness such as cancer, or even something more short-term that requires a hospital stay, parental visits and involvement are quite rightly seen as a means of enhancing care.”
“Ruth was admitted to an in-patient facility for treatment of an eating disorder, but instead of receiving the care she needed, her family were shut out and allowed only two two-hour visits per week. They spent more time travelling than they did with their daughter. Ruth was just 14 years old when she fatally self-harmed, just five months into her stay. Three months from that date, my family were faced with the same hospital, Huntercombe, as the only choice of a bed for our daughter. At that same hospital, when a child asked if they could have an extra type of jam for breakfast in the morning, they were told it did not have the budget, and when asked why Minstrels were no longer part of snack time, they were told that they were eating too many.”
“I will speak to new clauses 28 and 36 and amendment 39, which I tabled not just as an MP but as a father. After what my family have been through, I believe that any parent would do the same. Yesterday, alongside the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I had the privilege of hearing Dr Kate Szymankiewicz speak about her daughter Ruth. She shared not only the tragic circumstances of Ruth’s death but the type of person Ruth was: her dream of becoming a vet, her kindness, and how friends described her as a character straight out of an Enid Blyton novel. That is the Ruth her family remember and cherish. As parents, we became part of a world we never wanted to know. I am privileged to have met Kate, but we agreed that we wished our paths had never crossed because of what that meant.”
“It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation. This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.”
“Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities. I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them.”
“For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures. As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area. I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, under the Tories, a pub closed every 14 hours? That was 10,000 in total, so whether it is 14 hours or 14 years, the Tory party cannot be trusted with the economy.”
“Unlike most, if not all, of the Conservative Members listed on the Order Paper as supporters of the motion, my wife and I own two successful hospitality businesses. We welcome the increase in national insurance contributions and the improvements in workers’ rights because they are good for our employees, our businesses and our customers. Does the Minister agree that the Tories only know how to race to the bottom and not how to give workers a leg up?”