Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman, John Nicolson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Since we last met, the media regulator Ofcom has again reprimanded GB News for breaching impartiality rules. Ofcom says that news programmes should not be presented by politicians. The Tory Benches host a plethora of Ofcom rule-breaching MPs who leave this place to freelance as pretendy news presenters on a channel that spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation, and that undermines Ofcom. I am on the side of journalism, not disinformation. Does the Minister agree with me that GB News should drop the propaganda and obey the regulator?

Points of Order

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for having given me notice of her intention to make a point of order. I am most concerned about the point that she raises. It is indeed, as she suggests, a discourtesy to the Committee, and therefore to the House, for a senior Minister to withdraw from an advertised session to give evidence on an important matter. Mr Speaker has repeatedly said that it is extremely important that Ministers give evidence to Committees in a timely way. That is a perfectly reasonable rule or convention of this place, and I trust that the Committee will note the displeasure of the Chair and that the Secretary of State will hopefully, through his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, realise that he has been discourteous and in the first instance apologise and, secondly, appear before the Committee as soon as possible.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on 19 May, when responding to a question from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport claimed that the Channel 4 reality series “Tower Block of Commons” deceived the viewing public using actors rather than real tower block residents. She said:

“They were not really living in a flat—they were not real. They were actually actors.”

Indeed, she claimed that a number of the participants had confessed this to her at a subsequent dinner in the House of Commons. It is a serious charge, not least since the Secretary of State currently holds the fate of Channel 4 in her hands.

Channel 4 has now investigated and interviewed the production company and all the participants who dined with the Secretary of State, who said that the conversation she cited never happened. Channel 4 has released a detailed report rebutting the Secretary of State’s claim. The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), wrote urgently to the Secretary of State, offering her the opportunity to withdraw her claim, but she has refused to do so. Misleading the Select Committee is obviously a serious matter, so can I ask for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, about what I and other Members can now do, given the impending recess and the Secretary of State’s possible impending flight to another place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, I caution him to be very careful when he says in this place that a Member has misled anyone in the course of their duties in this House, before a Committee or in the Chamber. If any misleading has been done, it will of course have been inadvertent, and I would be grateful if in the first instance he would acknowledge that any misleading would be inadvertent.

[John Nicolson]

The Secretary of State has a reputation for extreme probity, so I am sure that is the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is probably as good as I am going to get. He will appreciate that it is not for the Chair to assess whether evidence given to a Committee is accurate, but I understand why he wants to raise the point before the House today. If the Committee concludes that information has been given that is not in fact accurate, it will be up to the Committee to decide how to pursue the matter and possibly construct another evidence session. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson]

It is making plenty of programmes. In fact, the Secretary of State already said that so many production companies are being successful that they cannot keep up with the current demands. Conservative Members need to marshal their arguments and work out which they are advocating.

Once again, so we are all clear: 96% of the public in the Government’s own consultation process, which the Secretary of State said it would be an abuse to ignore, said that they opposed Channel 4 privatisation—so much for respecting the public will. It appears that the public matter as little as industry experts.

Let us turn to one of the main arguments put forward for the privatisation of Channel 4. The Secretary of State often says that she wants it to be able to compete with

“streaming giants such as Netflix and Amazon”.

She may have noticed that they do not have war correspondents, or at least that those who do appear are actors in movies, not journalists dealing with breaking news. The comparison is far from ideal, but let us briefly explore it anyway.

Amazon Prime is owned by a trillion-dollar company that uses its video streaming end as a loss leader. Unlike Channel 4, it does not make a profit, so it is far from a role model. What about Netflix, the other role model that the Secretary of State has in mind for a privatised Channel 4? That is not going so well either. It has racked up billions of dollars of debt and its share price has fallen by more than 70% in the last six months, which demonstrates the volatility of the market.

Unlike the Secretary of State’s chosen examples, Channel 4 is a commercial success that runs a profit, not a loss. Its real competitors are the current UK public service broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV. We all know that the future is digital and here Channel 4 leads the UK. We all know that linear numbers are down, but it is in a strong position to benefit from that trend as it is the UK’s biggest free streaming service, despite having a considerably smaller budget than the BBC. Also, of course, because it is publicly owned, it can reinvest extra revenue.

What if the nightmare happened and the Secretary of State got her way? Some on the Tory Benches—I suspect not those invited to participate in this debate—may be swithering and wondering what the future of Channel 4 will hold. They might consider that the Secretary of State, however dodgy her grasp of facts and of the issue, has promised that Channel 4 will remain a public service broadcaster. They might think, “We will have sold off another piece of the family silver, but at least we can all muddle through and things might not change that much.”

Well, not so fast: although the Secretary of State did promise that, whatever fate befalls Channel 4, it would always remain a public service broadcaster free at the point of use, that undertaking fell apart somewhat under cross-examination at the Select Committee. We discovered that Channel 4’s buyer need only keep it as a public service broadcaster for 10 years. The Secretary of State has now made it clear that the Government will have no locus over the broadcaster once that period is over. When asked if the owners would have to consult the Department after 10 years, the Secretary of State said:

“No, it will be privately owned. It will be up to owners.”

So I say to Tory Back Benchers who are uncertain about what to do, if the new owners want to make Channel 4 a streaming service, they can. If they would like to ditch the award-winning “Channel 4 News” with its new chief anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, it is up to them. The Secretary of State may be too scared to go into the studio to face him about Channel 4 privatisation, but do those Tory Back Benchers not want him and the news channel to be around to tackle the next Labour Prime Minister? Short-termism may come back to bite them. Say goodbye to “Unreported World”, which sends intrepid correspondents off to tackle unreported stories in some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots. They are astonishingly brave, but the show is expensive to make. Would a privatised company make it? No one at the channel thinks so.

The new owner could break up the company and sell it off. They could move it out of the UK. It is up to them entirely. The Secretary of State may argue that that is unlikely or would not make commercial sense, but do you really trust her judgment? Do you think she understands the detail? Will she even be around once this Prime Minister is gone? Who knows—it doesn’t really matter. What is important is that, once this 10-year period is over, the Government will have absolutely no power; it will be too late.

Reasoned argument has been tried and tested over Channel 4 privatisation. The arguments for privatisation never stack up. As a previous Secretary of State told me:

“too expensive, too unpopular, and too little in return.”

That Secretary of State had listened to the experts. This one does not seem to want to listen to the experts.

With an 80-plus seat majority, this ultimately, as we all know, will be up to Tory Back Benchers. Those of you not on the Government payroll do not much like your leader—we saw that and we saw how you voted. That we know and you often tell me you do not really believe in the culture wars—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not really addressing the Chair when he says “You”. He means “They,” not “You.”

[John Nicolson]

I beg your pardon. I try to avoid that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Now is the chance for Conservative Back Benchers to join us on this side of the House in the mainstream. Please stand up for a national treasure.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call John Nicolson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was to wind up for my party, rather than speaking at this juncture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to save his slot until later—

[John Nicolson]

I would, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is all right with you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then we shall come to that arrangement. I call Dame Margaret Hodge.

Dementia Research in the UK

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

My mum died of dementia at the start of the covid outbreak. She formed a great attachment to Madam Deputy Speaker, of whom she was very fond, and Madam Deputy Speaker was very fond of her. Her name was Marion. She went from being a sparkling presence to somebody who, at the start of the pandemic, was locked in for her own protection and I was not able to go and see her. I had never before understood the whole idea of somebody turning their face to the wall, but she just stopped eating and drinking, and within a week, she was dead. I hope that when the story of the pandemic is written, we will remember all those people who died because of it and who will never be recorded as having died of covid. They died through loneliness, which is so important for us all to remember.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. May I interrupt to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that his mother was a sparkling presence and a lovely lady? I was very fond of her and it is tragic that he has lost her. We all feel it very deeply with him.

Aviation, Travel and Tourism Industries

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Tourism is the very lifeblood of Scotland. It is no coincidence that our unofficial national motto is “Ceud mìle fàilte”—“A hundred thousand welcomes”. Scotland loves visitors and visitors love Scotland, so the covid pandemic and lockdown have been as painful for the tourism and hospitality sector as for any in Scotland—a country so geared up for them and reliant on them.

I noticed that the Prime Minister flew to Cornwall yesterday to talk to the G7 about upping its game on climate change. While I am sure the aviation industry welcomed his visual endorsement, it is yet another tourism sector that has suffered from a lack of targeted support. The French Government provided Air France-KLM with €7 billion-worth of support to help jobs. The German Government have gone way beyond the commitment level of the UK Government by also pledging €7 billion to their largest airline, Lufthansa, thus not just ensuring the survival of Lufthansa but allowing it to compete more effectively post pandemic with companies that may well be weaker as a result of the pandemic—alas, companies such as the UK airlines.

I mentioned the Prime Minister’s private jet trip to Cornwall, for which he has endured some ridicule. On the environment, as with so much else, he is a veritable geyser of hot air rather than substance. While we all recognise the importance of jobs in the aviation industry, we all recognise too the vital need for a greener transport future. The UK Government missed a major environment opportunity when they ignored the 167,000 people who signed a Greenpeace petition calling on the Chancellor to attach environmental conditions for airlines. Not only was the Chancellor’s help for UK airlines much more modest than their European rivals, but the essential environmental caveats all of us want to see for a greener future were not attached to the assistance given, nor indeed was a requirement to strengthen workers’ rights—although with the Conservatives that probably surprises no one.

Finally, I say to the Minister, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that however you travel, if you are looking for a wonderful spot to go on holiday this autumn, I would recommend my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire. I would challenge any Member to find a more beautiful piece of the world than picturesque Perthshire, glorious Kinross, and the stunning Ochil hills. Rocks, castles, whisky and extraordinary food: we have it all and you are more than welcome.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right about beautiful Perthshire.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I also welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her place. It is very good to see her.

One year ago, the pandemic changed our world. Lockdown came and, as we found ourselves forced inside and away from our friends and families, many found comfort in the arts and culture. In the past year, every hon. and right hon. Member of this House will have, I am sure, searched for escape in a book, lifted their spirits with music, or distracted themselves with film. A world without literature, music or cinema would be intolerable and a lockdown without the arts would have been even grimmer than it has been.

As we continue to weather the crisis, culture still plays a significant role in getting us through the day. The artist has in many ways been an essential worker and one too often overlooked by the UK Government. One of the groups struggling with the impact of covid-19 is the freelance sector. A survey of Equity members found that 40% have not received help from the self-employed income support scheme. Various loopholes have left many out in the cold, unable, due to technicalities, to qualify for UK Government schemes.

That injustice has meant that many creative professionals have had to apply for universal credit, with many more considering leaving the culture sector altogether. In pre-covid times, the cultural and entertainment sector not only brought huge benefits to the economy, but gave the countries of the UK international acclaim. It is vital that we ensure that every one of those workers comes back into the industry, so that whenever the pandemic is over the sector thrives again. In the Budget tomorrow, the Chancellor must protect these essential workers and ensure that they no longer fall through the cracks. He must go further by guaranteeing them the backdated support they deserve.

Let us look at musicians as one key group. They are facing long-term worries about the viability of their industry. They are fighting on three fronts. In the last five years, the market for recorded music has shifted towards streaming. Opaque deals cut by the big record labels and the streaming model mean that most no longer have a viable stream of income from recording. The result is that they are almost completely reliant on live performance. Live performances in the Brexit age, a world of limitless opportunity—well, hardly, because the UK Government rejected the EU’s proposed artists’ deal. Musicians have now been landed with the very hardest of Brexits.

The Minister, appearing before the Select Committee, recently looked surprised to discover that a single one-night visa for a UK performer in Spain now costs €600. It is €500 in Italy. When covid lockdown ends, none but the wealthiest musicians will be able to perform across much of Europe. That means the end of orchestral tours. The Minister confirmed to us that no talks are ongoing to resolve this looming Brexit reality. Once again, jobs are being wilfully sacrificed for anti-free movement zealotry. The chaos visited on musicians impacts not just them but their support crews, technicians and haulage companies, all of whom will lose out on work to cheaper European alternatives. Put yourself in the shoes of one of these musicians, with no money coming in from record sales or European tours, the only saving grace being the upcoming domestic festival season—a season once again cancelled. The UK Government had the opportunity to underwrite insurance for festivals but decided not to. Glastonbury was one of the first to cancel. Musicians and their support staff did not get into this business for money but for a love of their craft. They have never asked for much from their Government, but they surely have the right to expect that their Government do not actively work against them.

Musicians, rightly, have received much publicity, but another sector that has been forgotten by the Government is advertising-funded media and entertainment. Local commercial radio stations have provided trustworthy news and a friendly voice for those living alone, but they have seen their revenues plummet. The drop in advertising revenue has also been a major problem for local papers. Some have had to shut their doors after decades of dedicated service to their community. That is why we on the SNP Benches backed a tax credit for the advertising-funded media sector, and I call again on the UK Government and the Chancellor, in particular, to listen and act.

In the time available, I cannot name-check every cultural and entertainment sector damaged by this pandemic and threatened by Brexit, crying out for help, but all are asking that this House hears one overriding message that is vital for their long-term recovery. Just because an industry limps on, it does not mean that the wounds dealt by the pandemic have healed. The Government must offer and maintain their support in the years to come.

The arts and culture communities the length and breadth of these islands eagerly await the Chancellor’s Budget tomorrow. Artists deserve more from the UK Government and I hope that he has been listening and will deliver, but I am not holding my breath. Westminster seems very distant, remote and unresponsive to the sector’s concerns.

The Canongate wall of the Scottish Parliament is covered with quotations from writers from across Scotland and from the length of its history. I will close with one of those quotes by Sir Walter Scott:

“When we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o’ our ain, we could aye peeble them wi’ stanes when they werena gude bairns—But naebody’s nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.”

Let us hope I am wrong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Although this is clearly on the Annunciator and the screens that people have in front of them, I reiterate that there will be a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Point of Order

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 December, when responding to my question on a recent Information Commissioner’s Office report into political parties’ data collection, the Minister for Media and Data, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), claimed that, when the Conservative party collected the personal data of more than 10 million people based on their race and religion,

“the Information Commissioner…did not find that any breaches of the law had occurred.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 978.]

He repeated a version of that claim when appearing before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, the Information Commissioner appeared before that Committee yesterday and confirmed to me that the Conservative party had acted illegally—indeed, she had required the party to delete the data that it had illegally collected.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be mortified to learn that he has inadvertently misled the House on this important matter. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether he could be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his false claim and commit that the Conservative party will not conduct illegal racial and religious profiling in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order and for confirming to me that he has also given notice of his intention to raise this matter to the Minister concerned, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).

I can answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. In general terms, I can certainly confirm that, in the event that the answer that a Minister has given here in the Chamber transpires to be, for some reason, inaccurate, that Minister should, of course, correct the record at the earliest opportunity. But the hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that it is not, of course, for the Chair to adjudicate on whether that general injunction applies in any particular instance; I cannot confirm whether or not it applies in this instance.

However, I am quite certain that, if the right hon. Member for Maldon has inadvertently said something in the House that has transpired to be inaccurate, he will take the opportunity to correct the record as soon as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter.

To allow the Chamber to be prepared for the next item of business, I will now suspend the House for three minutes.

Arts, Culture and Heritage: Support Package

Debate between John Nicolson and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now go to John Nicolson, who has one minute.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

All of us are conscious of how tough these months have been for our galleries, museums, cinemas, theatres and live music venues. For too long, the UK Government left our creative communities to languish in uncertainty and accumulating debt. I regret that this help comes too late for organisations that have already gone under. That said, I welcome the announcement of a £1.57 billion lifeline after weeks of campaigning by the creative communities and my SNP colleagues. To date, however, the UK Government have shown no intention of supporting those not eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. If that is not addressed, we risk losing a generation who cannot afford to survive without income. Will the Minister clarify how much, if any, of this funding will go to self-employed workers in the creative industries who have slipped through the net? How will she ensure that these funds urgently reach the organisations that have been desperately pleading for help?