Future of Terrestrial Television

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests.

Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial.

The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I know he is acutely aware that many communities that he and I represent in the Scottish borders rely on that television service. At the same time, they do not have access to a high-speed, high quality broadband connection unless they pay significantly for it. Does he agree that we need a commitment from the Government to extend the Freeview service to reassure residents in those communities?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon.

Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter.

Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living.

That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure.

In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK.

The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons.

The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it.

Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that.

I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035.

That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available.

Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis.

I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming.

Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently.

Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said:

“What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.”

It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s.

Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio.

I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment.

The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs.

Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership.

I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of apprentices in the House of Commons.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

Apprenticeships help us to build a more skilled and adaptable workforce. The House of Commons Commission is increasing the number of apprentices by participating in National Apprenticeship Week and attending careers fairs. Additionally, the administration supports the Speaker’s Apprenticeship Academy; we are currently recruiting a second cohort to that academy, and we are also recruiting 12 security officer apprentices. Adil Rashid is a Speaker’s apprentice in my Administration Committee team. He has a strong work ethic and is a good team player, and I am grateful for his support.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that answer. Everyone should have the potential to work in Parliament, not just those who live in and around London, so can he confirm how many apprentices have been recruited since the introduction of the UK Parliament’s apprenticeship scheme, and in particular how many were recruited from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Nick Smith]

We currently have 32 apprentices, and another 19 will be recruited this year. There have been approximately 90 since 2017. Parliament recruits apprentices under the English apprenticeship scheme. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own programmes and funding structures.

Swimming Facilities

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, his town will not be the only town in the United Kingdom with a pool unavailable for a period of time or possibly forever. I agree that local authorities across the United Kingdom have responsibility, but I also believe the Government have some responsibility to support local councils.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is being very generous with his time. My constituency has six swimming pools. Much has been made of the health benefits, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for those of us who represent coastal communities or constituencies with large rivers, being able to swim is an important life skill?

[Joe Robertson]

Absolutely. I also have a coastal constituency, and swimming is a life skill that, one day, someone may rely on to save a life. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.

Councils are generally responsible for supporting the provision of both formal and informal opportunities for communities to be active. They spend £1.4 billion a year on sport, leisure, green spaces, parks and playgrounds, making local government the biggest public funder of sport and leisure services. Local government is directly responsible for 2,727 public leisure facilities, including almost 900 swimming pools. There are 4,000 more pools in England controlled or provided by other operators.

The sport and leisure infrastructure provided by councils is relied on by residents, schools and voluntary sector organisations, none of which could provide their assistance without public swimming facilities. I acknowledge the work of the Swimming Alliance, which is a collaborative group of more than 25 leading national organisations united to address the urgent and systemic challenges facing swimming participation. I will come on to the challenges that swimming facilities are facing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.

First, I declare an interest: in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran I chair the Splash group, which is working hard to restore and reopen the outdoor tidal pool in the town of Saltcoats. It has actually been in existence since about the 1890s, so that we can keep swimming pools going. Outdoor swimming has never been so popular, and the pool would be a great asset once again to our town and the constituency. Earlier today I hosted an event with UK Future Lidos, which is here to promote the excellent contribution that lidos make to public health, overall health and wellbeing, the local economy and so much more. The event was met with great enthusiasm, with many attending and showing much interest in visiting and supporting local lidos.

Swimming is very popular in the UK, and in Scotland it is one of our most successful sports. It is one of the nation’s highest participation sports, and 95% of Scottish people agree that swimming pools are important for safety. Nine in 10 agree that the closure of swimming pools is bad for local communities and a cause for concern.

[John Lamont]

I should declare an interest: I learned to swim in Seamill in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she agree that there is a particular challenge in Scotland because the Scottish Government are underfunding local authorities, which makes it much harder for councils to support swimming pools in the way they might want to?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with the hon. Member’s comments.

Additionally, 93% of Scottish people think that all children should learn to swim, and 91% think that learning to swim is an important part of every child’s education. It can obviously save lives, especially for people living on the coast, as we do.

Swimming is one of the most popular participation sports for all. However, many pool operators are passing on rising operational costs to pool users, making swimming a less affordable and accessible activity, which is a challenge. Scotland still has the highest drowning statistics of all the home nations, and it is important that we help pools access funding to keep affordable and safe swimming available to all, to protect the heritage of our cultural assets, and ultimately to save lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith]

So far there have been about 150 interactions with MPs in this Parliament, including 85 with new Members elected in 2024. Information about the three restoration and renewal options are expected to be published later this year, allowing Members to decide on the preferred way forward. We want to help Members understand the proposals prior to this important decision point. As the programme moves into the next phase and we get closer to the start of the main works, we must ramp up these interactions so that Members are informed as best as possible.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What steps the client board is taking to ensure that contractors from all parts of the UK are used in the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The restoration and renewal programme is one of the UK’s biggest restoration projects. For example, it must deliver for small and medium-sized enterprises by creating apprenticeships, and skills and training opportunities all over the country. The original Act—the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019—stresses the need for the benefits of the works to be available across the UK. Over half of the delivery authority’s spend on supplies to date—for example, on surveys—has been to companies outside London and the south-east. The restoration and renewal client board is very clear that this programme must benefit the whole of the UK.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that answer. It is absolutely right that local contractors across the United Kingdom should be able to take part in this historic project. In my constituency we have businesses such as Hutton Stone, which provides a full stone masonry service and has some of the country’s finest stone carvers. Can we ensure that the process for bidding to take part in the restoration work is designed so as not to preclude contractors based further away from London, in order to maximise participation, and what else can we do to ensure that this process is used to upskill our workforce?

[Nick Smith]

These works are already boosting our UK industries. The programme will create jobs and apprenticeships with better skills across the country, from engineering and high-tech design to traditional crafts such as carpentry and stone masonry. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the restoration and renewal team have visited Inverness castle, the Glasgow School of Art, the Scottish Parliament and the Engine Shed in Stirling to promote these work across the country, and to bring forward and encourage the skills he mentioned in his question.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I agree with my hon. Friend that local grassroots clubs have a crucial part to play in delivering wider societal benefits, fostering social cohesion and building a strong sense of local identity. The Football Association is responsible for good governance at this level, and its new grassroots strategy, launched in the autumn, looks to set clubs up for success.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

We should be supporting sports facilities across the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government provided the Scottish Football Association with more than £20 million to build and improve football facilities between 2021 and 2025. Do the Government have any plans to invest further in grassroots football in Scotland?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have outlined the funding that this Government are investing. I look forward to visiting Scotland very soon, and I meet my counterpart there regularly.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

3. What steps the Commission is taking to ensure that Portcullis House is functioning effectively.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Officials are working to ensure that Portcullis House continues to function effectively. Projects and maintenance are under way on heating, cooling and ventilation, and to upgrade equipment that is reaching the end of its life. There is planned maintenance of toilets and will be more regular cleaning of them, and there will be refurbishment of lifts and escalators, and improvements to lighting and blinds in Members’ offices. Work is also under way on a longer-term solution for the PCH roof.

[John Lamont]

Lifts that do not work, toilets that do not flush, taps that do not work, leaks in the roof, heating that leaves rooms either too hot or cold, and escalators that break down—by any standard, Portcullis House is not working as it should. My concern is not for right hon. and hon. Members, but the staff who work for us in Portcullis House. It is clear that it is no longer fit for purpose. Can we have a further update from the House of Commons Commission on its work to make Portcullis House fit for the 21st century?

[Nick Smith]

I am really glad that the hon. Member has shone light on this important topic. There is much wear and tear in Portcullis House. On Tuesday of this week, the Administration Committee toured Portcullis House, looking at the nuts and the bolts holding the building together. We have asked officers to please come forward with a plan of action for the Commission to consider, in order to improve services in that lovely building in both the short and long term and make it a much better place for us all to work in. I will come back to him on his question.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of visitor levies in Scotland and Wales on inbound UK tourism.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Responsibility for tourism levies is devolved, but we want to watch what happens in Scotland and Wales with close interest. One of my main hopes is to increase the number of international visitors to the UK, and ensure more and more visitors come not only to London and the south-east, but travel across the whole United Kingdom.

[John Lamont]

Imposing taxes on tourists will only discourage people from enjoying the best of what the Scottish Borders and Scotland have to offer. Many small, rural businesses are struggling to sustain themselves, so I fear the extra tax proposed by the Scottish Government will be the last straw. Does the Minister share my concern about the impact that will have on tourism in Scotland? Will the Government undertake an impact study on the effect the tax will have on tourism, not just in Scotland but across the UK?

[Chris Bryant]

Despite having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the basis of devolution. This is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide. We want to have a very positive relationship with the Scottish Administration and, for that matter, the Administration in Wales. Of course we will look at this. The UK Government have no plans to introduce visitor levies at the moment, although there are potential benefits that might accrue to local communities, if they could be got right, but the idea of us investigating what the Scottish Government are doing would be completely wrong.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a short, two-clause Bill that extends the period of protection against court-ordered seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad. The Bill amends part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in public museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. Under section 134 of the Act, cultural objects that are on loan from abroad to feature in exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date when the object enters the United Kingdom.

The legislation was prompted by events in 2005, when 54 paintings, including works by Picasso, Matisse and Cézanne, were seized by customs officers in Switzerland. The paintings, from the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Russia, were impounded after they had left the town of Martigny in Switzerland. The Swiss authorities acted on a court order obtained by a Swiss import-export firm, Noga SA, which claimed that the Russian Government owed it several million dollars in unpaid debts relating to an oil-for-food deal signed in the early 1990s and which sought to enforce a Stockholm arbitration award in its favour.

The impounding of the paintings was just one of several attempts by Noga to recover its purported debt by seizing assets abroad. In 2000, Noga instituted proceedings to seize a Russian sailing ship that was due to take part in a regatta in France; it then sought to freeze the accounts of the Russian embassy in Paris. Both actions were dismissed by court rulings in favour of Russia. In 2001, it tried to appropriate two Russian military jets during the prestigious Le Bourget air show in France; that attempt also failed.

But it was Noga’s seizure of the Pushkin paintings that sparked the most outrage of all. The director of the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg said that

“works of art are now being used as hostages in trade disputes”.

Although the seizure order was quickly cancelled by Switzerland’s Federal Council, the Hermitage warned that no Russian museum would be able to send objects on loan to any overseas venue unless it received concrete legal guarantees that its artworks would not be seized during the loan period.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill. Does he agree that the relatively minor change in it will give great reassurance to overseas lenders about their capacity and confidence to lend assets to the United Kingdom? In the Scottish Borders, across Scotland and across the UK, all our constituents will now benefit from being able to enjoy those assets, and the lenders will have the comfort of knowing that they are safe here.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend precisely pinpoints the advantage of the Bill, which is very narrowly defined but will provide extra certainty to those who lend artworks to England and Scotland and the museums therein that those artworks will be returned in due course. That comfort will drive further loans in future, which will be to the benefit of the people in this country, our tourism industry and our cultural offering in general.

The measures in the 2007 Act enable the UK Government, the Governments of Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive to give guarantees for such loans in the United Kingdom. Since the Act’s introduction, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has been responsible for approving institutions in England for immunity from seizure, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers for other parts of the United Kingdom. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.

In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the Act therefore provides:

“The protection continues…for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the recent inspectorate report, which I think gives a strong commendation to the CPS for its response to this pandemic. In comparative terms, there is a strong vote of confidence in the CPS’s resilience, digital capability and planning for difficulties such as these. She is right to mention the court recovery plan. As I have mentioned, the Lord Chancellor has published a detailed plan. Many measures are under consideration. There is a strong commitment to the right to jury trial, but no decisions have been made yet.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to prevent media reporting which may lead to contempt of court.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to prevent conventional and social media reporting which may lead to contempt of court; and if she will make a statement.

[John Lamont]

Does the Solicitor General agree that on the whole the press does act responsibly and is swift to act in relation to material that may be prejudicial to court proceedings?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is right to acknowledge that the press is on the whole very responsible in its reporting of court proceedings, which is why issuing a media advisory notice is an exceptional course of action. In the past 12 months, I have only done that twice. However, it remains an important power, which will be used if necessary.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I pause in case there are any further contributions. No? What an incredibly efficiently short debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A statement was made by the SNP spokesman about Scottish Government investment. I thought it was important to correct the record. Much of that funding comes from the UK Government and the Scottish Government very rarely meet their targets, despite the fact they like to talk about them a lot.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his “point of order”—I am putting that in inverted commas—but he knows that it is not a point of order for the Chair. However, he has made his point, and I perceive that it has been noted by those to whom he wished to make it.

TV Licences for Over-75s

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I have already answered that question in other ways, but I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that no decision has yet been made. I was saying to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) that there was an obligation on the BBC to consult should it wish to make any change to the concession, with the Government’s expectation being that the BBC would continue to honour the concession. The BBC has conducted an extensive consultation, the results of which have not even been published yet, so it is premature to sow all this fear in older people’s minds.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I very much support the continuation of the concession, but is it not important to recognise that when the House passed the Digital Economy Act 2017, which transferred responsibility for the concession to the BBC, Opposition Members supported it?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

No we did not!