| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ministerial Meetings
Q8. [80329] Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): When he last met President Clinton.
The Prime Minister: I last met the President in February, but, obviously, we have remained in very close contact, particularly over the past few weeks.
Dr. Godman: I take it that Northern Ireland was on the agenda. Does the Prime Minister agree with the remark of President Mary McAleese yesterday evening:
- "What has proved most difficult to agree on is the emblematic issue of beginning disarmament"?
The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments about the murder of Rosemary Nelson. We have put in an independent police force from Kent precisely to carry out that investigation. I hope that people can see that we are making every effort possible to ensure that the people who carried out that barbaric act are brought to justice.
We will carry on working for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in every way that we can. The declaration that we made at Hillsborough was a way--we thought--that could provide us with a route through this particular impasse, but we will carry on working as hard as we can to achieve that. That is because, first, the vast majority of people--the parties to the Good Friday agreement--want the agreement to work. The most frustrating thing about the whole issue is that they want it to work and are, in my view, all committed to making it work, but we are down to some very great difficulties in getting over the last remaining hurdles.
Secondly, the Good Friday agreement still remains the best chance that people have for a good future in Northern Ireland, because it resolves the constitutional issues and allows us to move to equality of treatment for everybody in Northern Ireland. That is surely what the whole House would want.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Given the uncertainty of the air operations, will the right hon. Gentleman consult our allies in Washington this weekend on the necessity of providing rapid reaction forces, airborne forces and commando forces not only on the carriers in the Adriatic but in other locations around Kosovo, so that President Milosevic may be in no doubt that NATO is absolutely, irrevocably determined to see this through?
The Prime Minister:
We certainly are determined to see this through. I do not want to add anything to what I said on the issue of ground forces earlier in our Question Time exchanges. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that, in any event, at this stage we would be fighting an air campaign. However, as was said by the US State Department a short time ago, and as I said yesterday, all options remain under review. The difficulties that we have set out in respect of ground forces remain, but as I said in answer to earlier questions and say again now, Milosevic does not have a veto on NATO action.
On the hon. Gentleman's particular points, we review all options, but there is a justifiable limit to the degree to which we should discuss wholly openly every single
different part of military tactics and strategy. I know that he will understand that, too. I assure him that our will and determination to see this through is absolute. I believe that demonstrating that will at the NATO summit this week is a big part of ensuring success.
Q9. [80330] Ms Tess Kingham (Gloucester):
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the people of the city of Gloucester and, in fact, all British people on their generosity in responding to the Kosovo refugee crisis? Does he recognise that many tens of thousands--perhaps even hundreds of thousands--of Kosovar Albanians are displaced in Kosovo, and, it is reported, are living in the mountains, some eating grass, without adequate shelter, health care or any facilities and in very dire need? What discussions has he had with
The Prime Minister:
We have discussions the whole time about the feasibility of getting humanitarian aid through to those refugees, though the experience of using air drops is mixed. We have to make sure that any action we take in this respect will be effective.
The commitment and the generosity of the British people should not surprise us, but it is amazing how generous they have been. In communities and churches up and down the country, millions of pounds have been raised for the Kosovar refugees and we applaud that. The Government have added significant sums of money. However, the best thing for those displaced people in Kosovo is that we make sure that this action succeeds.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. On Monday, the hon. Member for Halifax(Mrs. Mahon)--to whom I have written, informing her that I intended to raise this point--disclosed to the House during the debate that she had visited Serbia the previous weekend. She did not, however, disclose that The Mirror newspaper had paid for that visit. Will you advise the House whether, in those circumstances, a Member is required to disclose such facts and whether the hon. Lady should have made them clear on Monday?
Madam Speaker:
It is incumbent on a Member to disclose such facts when making a speech, but we have had procedures in this House for some time whereby, if there is a misdemeanour of that nature, any hon. Member may refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he is certainly at liberty to take that course of action.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I made it absolutely clear thatThe Mirror was paying part of my expenses for the visit, and the information is being sent to the Register of Members' Interests. I did not initiate the debate, so I did not think that that was necessary.
Madam Speaker:
It is usual when taking part in a debate, if there has been some financial interest, for the Member to make that clear at the beginning; then we all know exactly where we stand. There is nothing wrong with that. An interest should be made clear at the beginning of a debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As one who went to Baghdad in controversial circumstances in 1994, I remind the House that the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, had the generosity to say, first, that he did not criticise me for going and, secondly, that other people should not criticise me for going. These are rather different times, perhaps; Lord Hurd might have been right.
Madam Speaker:
I think the House will have heard the Prime Minister quite clearly say that he has no criticism of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) or of any other Member of the House for taking whatever action they think is right. We are all free to take what action we think is right at the time.
3.30 pm
Digital Television Broadcasting
3.33 pm
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a universal service obligation for the delivery of certain digital television services and with respect to the delivery of regional television services; and for related purposes.
Madam Speaker: Order. May we have a little order in the House so that the right hon. Gentleman--he is not yet right honourable, but he may be one day. May we have a little order, so that the hon. Gentleman may be heard?
Dr. Turner: Information provided by television can help people to find jobs, to participate in community life and to learn about life's opportunities. Access to television can play an important role in preventing social exclusion.
The Bill deals primarily with the important aspects of the provision of digital terrestrial television. In the analogue era of television broadcasting, the United Kingdom has achieved almost universal access to core BBC and ITV services. First, those services reach people--signals can be received by 99.4 per cent. of the population. Secondly, they are affordable. Television sets are relatively cheap: they cost from about £30 in second-hand markets in my constituency. Viewers can watch a rich variety of programmes. BBC programmes are paid for through a modest licence fee for the whole household, and ITV programmes, at no additional direct cost, are funded by the sale of advertisements.
Compared with digital television, analogue is inefficient in its use of the frequencies available. It runs at much higher transmission power levels, and requires many more transmitter masts and relays. A rapid move to digital terrestrial television to replace analogue is highly desirable. There are, however, real dangers to existing access if the move to digital is left to current legislation and market forces.
One threat to access will be the cost to broadcasters of transmitting to difficult locations. Without a policy for complete roll-out, market forces will not necessarily cater for groups living in sparse rural or remote areas. Another threat is the cost to the poor, particularly the pensioner poor, of upgrading their equipment. It is clear that the less well-off will be the hardest hit by analogue switch-off if their only choice is to buy new equipment.
Without change to current plans, millions of people will be unable to get the benefits of digital television. I want universal access to the programmes that people want to see. I want Parliament to protect the interests of those in rural or remote areas and those who are less well-off, so that the whole nation can benefit from what modern technology has brought us.
The Bill will impose a legal obligation on Government and broadcasters to deliver universal access to digital television. It will make analogue switch-off conditional
on a guarantee that those households still dependent on analogue television for core BBC and ITV services will be provided free of charge with the means of access to digital terrestrial broadcasts.
Analogue switch-off may occur on a national or regional basis. In either case, my Bill assumes that switch-off will be considered only when enough households have decided on the digital option either because they are replacing existing, ageing television sets or because they are attracted to the new facilities available with digital. A possible scenario could be to propose analogue switch-off for a time when 90 per cent. of households in a given area are already viewing digital television. In those circumstances, the Bill would require broadcasters to assist the remaining 10 per cent. to access digital. That assistance could involve the provision of decoders or a subsidy towards a replacement television.
Many of the details of the universal service obligation can be left to regulation. It is of immediate importance, however, to put in place now legislation that will ensure that the move to digital increases, not decreases, access.
The Bill will also deal with long-standing anomalies in the availability of regional variations of television programming. That issue is of particular concern to me and to 40 or 50 other hon. Members, because many of our constituents cannot receive the appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV.
I have been fortunate enough to succeed in the ballot for an Adjournment debate on this issue next week. Today, I shall therefore merely give an example of the frustration caused to my constituents by this anomaly. Mr. Paul Cobb in Heacham, as part of a campaign initiated locally by Councillor Marcus Liddington, brought this incident to my attention. Last year, following a serious sexual assault on a woman in Heacham, Anglia Television filmed and broadcast a reconstruction. The film was probably seen by 750,000 viewers, but sadly not by those living in and around Heacham. Like many people in west Norfolk, Heacham residents can receive only Yorkshire Television. Norfolk viewers unable to see the reconstruction were therefore the very people most likely to have been potential witnesses. The introduction of digital television presents a golden opportunity for the rectification of such anomalies, and we should seize that opportunity.
The objective could be achieved through the use of the larger number of channels available to digital terrestrial broadcasting, enabling simulcasting to take place. That means a transmitter delivering more than one regional variation. Alternatively, the objective could be achieved through the exploitation of other technical merits of digital broadcasting, such as a different deployment of transmitters and power levels. My Bill will ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting will provide viewers with appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV television programmes. That obligation will also be linked to the timing of analogue switch-off.
Costs will of course be involved in the implementation of the Bill's objectives, but they should not and need not impose a burden on the taxpayer; nor should the public be forced to buy new televisions or decoder boxes. Fortunately, there is an alternative. Analogue switch-off will both remove the tight constraints on digital broadcasting that were introduced to prevent interference with analogue reception and free up precious frequency
space. The result will be valuable commercial andpublic service opportunities, and a significant source of public revenue. Those involved in digital television may wish to buy frequency space, but there will be other bidders. The cost of providing universal access can be met by those who will benefit from early switch-off. The costs will be much lower than many currently imagine. On Monday, Chris Barrie of The Guardian reported that plans for boxes costing as little as £25 were well advanced.
Some time ago, in response to a complaint, a BBC spokesman remarked that a television licence
"is like a fishing licence: it allows people to receive television, but does not guarantee that they can do so".
A universal service obligation for television broadcasting would recognise that access to television services is a basic entitlement, and would make the delivery of core television services, national and regional, a legal requirement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |