David Mundell MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls. I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband. While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that. The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Gretna Green in my constituency as not just the wedding capital of the UK, but the wedding capital of Europe? It is particularly popular with couples from the north-west, and obviously, any MP who is still looking to be wed would be made most welcome there. However, many of the rules and regulations around civil ceremonies are arcane and bureaucratic. While there must always be proper checks, surely simplicity, spontaneity, innovation and joy must also be important. As such, will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate on modernising marriage laws?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Stephen Montgomery, who is the director of the Scottish Hospitality Group, that the very circumstances he is setting out have brought the industry to the brink, and that unless the Government start listening, it is going to go over a cliff edge?

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  The Dumfriesshire town of Moffat, which I have the privilege of representing and of living in, has a close association with a number of famous people. But few of our notable local sons or daughters had such a profound influence on the future of the United Kingdom as Hugh Dowding, who was born on 24 April 1882 and whose leadership of RAF Fighter Command during the battle of Britain was decisive, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), in defending the nation from both air attack and invasion by Hitler’s Nazi armies. It was during those summer and early autumn months of 1940 that the struggle for what was literally the survival of our nation was fought and ultimately decided. Central to that fight were the character, leadership and effective tactics of Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Dowding. The later Lord Dowding was not a flamboyant man. He was pragmatic, and a believer in meticulous planning. Having served during world war one and thereafter joined the RAF, he made his mark during the 1930s as a member of the Air Council for Supply and Research, as a firm believer that research and development was essential. He argued for adequate funding for research, knowing that the days of the biplane were numbered, and pushed for development of faster, advanced fighter aircraft. This initiative is largely credited with the development of the legendary Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft, which were ordered into production in 1934, and which would go on to play such an iconic and pivotal role in the Battle of Britain. Dowding showed enormous interest in emerging technology connected to the detection of enemy aircraft, and threw his support behind radio direction finding equipment, which again was central to victory in the skies over Britain in 1940. The foresight and determination to match emerging advanced aircraft and technologies with new, effective tactics led to the creation of what would become known as the Dowding system, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referenced in his opening remarks. That was an innovative air defence network, which integrated radar stations, ground observers and a centralised command structure. For the first time in history, an air force could see incoming attacks, track them in real time, and direct interception with precision. The new system meant that Britain, with its smaller number of aircraft, could resist the numerically far superior Luftwaffe, leaving German pilots often astonished at how swiftly RAF pilots appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to disrupt their formations. However, Dowding’s enthusiasm for new equipment, technologies and tactics was matched by an equally important human quality: his commitment to the principle that preserving trained men was as vital as preserving machines. He rotated squadrons to rest them; made full use, as we have heard, of pilots from across the Commonwealth, occupied Europe and even the United States; and was deeply moved by the sacrifice of his young airmen. Behind what was undoubtedly a reserved demeanour, he was deeply concerned for the wellbeing of his pilots and all his men, even speaking in later years of feeling their presence after death.

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this Saturday, at his birthplace in Moffat, a bust of the then Lord Dowding will be unveiled alongside a replica Spitfire, and that his former home has been turned into sheltered housing accommodation for RAF personnel, known as Dowding House.

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Dowding was someone who valued the trained individual and who really stood up for his men. From a number of excellent contributions we have heard Churchill’s assessment of the battle of Britain, in which he paid tribute to the courage of the RAF fighter pilots whose defence of our skies delivered both victory and the survival of our country. However, it is perhaps the more unvarnished estimation of an opposing protagonist that pays the most compelling tribute to Dowding. Following the battle of Britain, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt commanded German forces in the west and had been involved in planning the invasion of Britain which was ultimately cancelled after the battle of Britain. During interrogation by the allies, the Field Marshal was asked at what point during the course of the war he had seen the tide turning against Germany—was it Stalingrad, Leningrad or El Alamein? “Oh no,” replied von Rundstedt, “it was the Battle of Britain.” That was the first time he realised that the Nazis were not invincible. That shattering of progress towards what was seemingly an inevitable Nazi victory was down to the courage of the young pilots who fought and died in the skies over Britain in 1940, and their memory must always be honoured; but the vital contribution made by the son of a schoolmaster from Moffat should also be remembered. The quiet determination of Hugh Dowding, which gave those pilots the tools, the system and the strategy to succeed, was central to winning the battle of Britain and ensuring the survival of a nation and the freedom and liberty we enjoy today.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he specifically raised delivery of aid in his discussions with his US counterparts? The United States is a hugely important actor in that regard: it has the potential to be positive in improving the existing arrangements, but it also has the potential to be a blocker. His interaction with the US can make the difference.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Bank Facilities in Moffat · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat branch. Earlier this year, out of the blue, the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of all five of its branches in my constituency, along with many others across Scotland, leading, in my view, to that bank giving up on rural communities. Moffat was particularly affected because it is 23 miles from the next nearest branch in Dumfries, has a high elderly and vulnerable population, is a tourist town that attracts many visitors, and has a large number of businesses that rely on cash. The petition states: The petition of users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat Branch, Declares that residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale and visitors to the area will be left without banking services and access to cash by the proposed closure of the local Bank of Scotland branch in Moffat, thereby causing significant concern and worry for the local community, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, and local businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, who rely on this these banking services; further that the petition organised locally by Evelyn Atkins calling on the Bank of Scotland to reverse the closure decision has garnered over 3,000 signatures from the local community and visitors to the town. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to call on the Bank of Scotland to keep its Moffat Branch open and to ensure that the residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale have proper access to cash and banking facilities. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003104]

• 1 Sept 2025 · Lisbon Maru Memorial · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate and the fact that we were able to have a debate in the House specifically about VJ Day. It is an issue that the events in the far east and some of the horrors that happened there are not known as well as they should be. I was not aware of this specific incident until I heard the hon. Lady mention it previously, so I commend her. Does she agree that we must continue to bring out all the facts about the events in the far east, where Scotland played a particular role, so that people understand the contribution and the sacrifices that were made?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Everybody condemns the deaths as people queue for aid, but this aid system that was enforced is only possible because of the support of the United States in its delivery—so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to persuade the United States that this is not the way to deliver aid into Gaza?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

  As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I very much welcome the removal of the 1982 start date. Coincidentally, today is Zero HIV Stigma Day, so it is important to recognise the stigma that many people suffered as a result of contracting HIV through infected blood. I hope that one of the supplementary routes to compensation might be to those who suffered extreme stigma and discrimination, or severe psychiatric consequences from the contraction of HIV.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, which is why this debate is so important. Many of those men did not feel able to speak about their experience, or found when they returned to the UK that the public wanted to move on, now that the war was over. It is incumbent on us to relay these experiences, which is why I want to tell Jock’s story tonight. Red Cross parcels rarely arrived in the camp, and dysentery, beriberi and malaria ravaged the prisoners. Somehow, Jock managed to stay alive, and he became a beacon of hope for other prisoners as, in the dark nights, he sang a song called the “Dumfriesshire Foxhounds”, a tune that lifted spirits and became so well known that even the Gurkhas and Australians joined in. Jock never gave in to bitterness, but the scars he carried—both physical and emotional—never truly healed. When he returned to Lockerbie, he embraced his family and the life he had left behind, becoming a major part of the annual Lockerbie gala. He shared his stories not to gain sympathy, but to honour truth and bear witness. He spoke of the Gurkhas—the “bravest little men”, who moved like ghosts in the jungle. He never forgot the cruel warnings prisoners were given, after being forced to dig potentially their own burial pit, that if the Americans came, the prisoners would all be burned alive, as he had seen happen to Gurkhas in Singapore. Let us take this opportunity to remember not just what Jock and his fellow prisoners of war endured, but what they stood for: duty, dignity and decency. We owe Jock—a man who, despite everything, found the strength to go on—and the men and women like him, more than monuments. Let us not allow the fading of photographs or the yellowing of old newspaper clippings to erase stories like his. Let us speak them aloud, share them and learn from them. When the last witnesses are gone, all that remains is what we choose to remember.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Last weekend I met my constituent Margaret Barbour, of Rosefield farm near Annan, to hear about the experience of her father, Sergeant Major Jock Wylie, and to look through the letters, paperwork and photographs that she has kept. A riding instructor in the Lanarkshire Yeomanry Territorials, Jock was deployed in 1940 to the far east. By 1942, after the fall of Singapore, he was taken prisoner by the Japanese. Thus began three years and eight months of unimaginable suffering. Jock was not a “guest” of the Imperial Nippon Army, as their propaganda called it, but their slave. Jock spent time in Changi prison in Singapore before being sent to the notorious Kinkaseki jungle camp on Formosa—now known as Taiwan. Hundreds of Jock’s fellow prisoners died on that journey. There, along with hundreds of others, he was forced to work in copper mines in horrific conditions, often up to 18 hours a day. Starved, beaten and stripped of dignity, men were tied to stakes under a burning sun, given salted rice or left in bamboo sweat boxes without water. Every day they were forced to take a walk past prisoners who had been beheaded for alleged misdemeanours and had their heads placed on poles, with their full military headgear still worn as the flesh around it decayed. Jock and his colleagues were reduced to skin and bone. He was over 12 stone when captured, and barely 6 stone when released. The first person to see him at the local railway station on his return burst into tears at the sight of him.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Order. We do not have clapping in the House of Commons, so please restrain yourselves. I have allowed substantial contributions to enable the debate to get under way, but we will now have to move to contributions of around five minutes.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Order. This is not an ongoing conversation. Ms Jones, please continue.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that point of order, and for highlighting the conflict between this debate and the matter to be considered in the House later. I have considerable discretion in who is called and when they are called, and I will seek to exercise that in the most effective way possible.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Order. The hon. Lady made important points, but interventions must be short.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Before we begin the debate, I wish to make a statement about the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice. As the House will know, there are ongoing criminal cases involving the prosecution of British veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. And, while there are as yet no criminal cases arising from the Clonoe inquest, the Government have initiated a judicial review of the inquest’s findings. Mr Speaker has today granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historical troubles-related deaths. References to these cases should be limited to the context, and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of the cases themselves, nor the names of those involved in them. Members should, as always, be mindful of the fact that these are properly matters for the courts, and not for this House, and take special care to avoid saying anything that might interfere with the course of justice.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Please refrain from applause.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  The Chair will change during the next contribution. If not everyone is able to be called to speak, it is my responsibility and not Ms Lewell’s, because I chose to allow more substantial contributions for the benefit of the debate.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was disappointed that the UK Government did not go ahead with proposals for a Glasgow campus for UK Government offices. One reason behind that proposal was upgrading the facilities available to Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff who are located at Abercrombie House in East Kilbride, which had been assessed as lacking the facilities required to be a second FCDO headquarters. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster work with the FCDO to ensure that that investment goes into Abercrombie House so that it can be a second headquarters?