| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problems, but may I caution him? He should not believe that there is an unlimited spectrum, especially in relation to digital terrestrial broadcasting.
Dr. Turner: The fact is that, through the use of modern compression techniques, we already have access to some five digital channels for every analogue channel. At present--without the release of the frequencies currently allocated to analogue television--we are looking at up to 30 channels. It will be for the people to decide, through Parliament, what use they want to make of those frequencies when they are freed up. I do not envisage all of them being used for our purpose, but I trust that some will be, for our problems are serious.
Parliament must be determined to insist on the highest possible levels of access, and on the right of people to receive their own regional broadcasts. We must also look after the interests of important minority groups. As a result of press coverage of this debate, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People approached me. It is campaigning for the Government to look again at the targets relating to the availability of subtitles for those with impaired hearing. I support its campaign; I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) that we shall need to consider other public service issues. We need to clarify public policy and, if necessary, legislate. Under the current arrangements, we face the horrifying prospect that, even with up to30 digital channels fully rolled out, many people in rural areas such as mine will still not be able to watch the very programmes that they most want to see.
During my campaign, I have spoken to a number of key players in the industry. Many would welcome early clarification of the way forward for digital television: clarification of the public interest constraints to be imposed and, in particular, clarification of the conditions for analogue switch-off--or, as some in the industry
prefer to call it, the switch from analogue to digital. Substantial investment is involved, and I think that the Government should face up to the issues as soon as possible to maximise the benefit that we can all obtain from the new technology. The industry, too, while defending its legitimate commercial interests, must become constructively involved.
The ITC tells me that it now aims to identify the criteria for the next phase of digital television expansion. It has also awarded a contract for a preliminary study of a digital-only terrestrial television frequency plan. In recent correspondence, it tells me:
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham):
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on his debate, which is on an important and interesting subject. I was glad to hear him say that he had an engineering background, so that he could probably understand some of the complicated science surrounding the issue.
I speak in the debate because I have some constituents who cannot receive any television. As we move into the next millennium, some people do not have a television set. Although some of them have a video machine, they have to pay a BBC licence fee for it. Therefore, the first thing that I should like to achieve is a proper, complete build-out of relay stations, so that those who cannot receive even analogue stations may receive them.
I should like, secondly, to deal with the very real problem of digital television services. A large chunk of my constituency--like that of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk--will not be able to receive any digital broadcasts until the analogue switch-off date.
Mr. Fabricant:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee pressed the Secretary of State for a date for analogue switch-off, but that he was unwilling to give one? It was thought that, by setting a date, there would be more rapid expansion of digital technology, to achieve the aims that my hon. Friend has set himself.
Mr. Atkinson:
My hon. Friend has a point. However, an analogue switch-off will not occur for 10 or, probably, 15 years. Therefore, many of my constituents will not be able to receive digital television until then; and that would be quite wrong.
I was very pleased to note that the transmitting authorities have now agreed to increase the digital relay build-out to 81 transmitters. Nevertheless, considering the many hundreds of transmitters in the United Kingdom, that is very slow progress. If we are to reach 95 per cent. digital television coverage, a further 120 transmitters will require conversion or re-engineering. Therefore, it will cost vastly more to cover that 5 per cent. of the population than it did to cover the initial 90 per cent. Moreover, 5 per cent. of people--mostly in Scotland; some in my constituency and in other areas of the north Pennines; many in Wales and in Northern Ireland; bizarrely, some in Norfolk and Suffolk; and even some in Hove, in Sussex--will not be able to receive digital broadcasts until the Government do something about it.
The solution lies in making all services available on satellite. Clearly, it would be totally uneconomic to cover 100 per cent. of the country with relay transmitters to reach that final 5 per cent. of those who do not receive the transmissions. Satellite television is the only way of reaching them.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his point on satellite, and does he agree that satellite broadcasters currently have absolutely no intention of broadcasting any regional programmes? Have they not, because of cost, totally ruled out broadcasting ITV regional programmes? Will he comment on that?
Mr. Atkinson:
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated entirely what I shall say, but I entirely agree with him on the point. We shall get to a rump of people--5 per cent. of the population, but they number several million people--who will not be able to receive terrestrial digital television, which they will be able to receive only by satellite.
A well-known misunderstanding of the situation is that one must subscribe to Sky Digital to receive satellite television. One does not have to do that. I was rather grateful to the BBC for issuing recently a handy little leaflet that makes it absolutely clear that one can receive digital satellite broadcasts without subscribing to Sky. One may receive from satellite, free of charge, BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC Choice, BBC News 24, Channel 4, S4C, Channel 5, and even the Parliamentary Channel.
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, one cannot receive ITV and ITV 2, because the ITV companies refuse to make their programmes available on the digital satellite platform. However, the BBC and others have set them an example, and I believe that, ultimately, they should follow it.
The difficulty is the competitive nature of commercial television, and the fact that ONdigital--the new digital terrestrial channel--is owned jointly by Carlton and Granada, which together own a vast chunk of the ITV network. They think that giving their programmes to satellite will give Sky a commercial advantage over them. I believe that the Government should intervene in that competitive battle, and I know that the Director General of Fair Trading is examining the matter. However, if that finding is not satisfactory, the ITV companies, in new regulations, should be made to make their programmes available to everyone, as Sky has to make its programmes available on terrestrial channels.
Mr. Rowlands:
I understand, appreciate and support the burden of the hon. Gentleman's case. However, I think that most people still hope that relay stations will be converted to deliver digital terrestrial services to our constituents. I hope that he will support that, too.
"We are taking very seriously the needs of different communities to be able to receive the appropriate regional service".
More ominously, however, it adds:
"But we also have to understand and take into account the wide range of competing claims on limited spectrum."
What, then, are the priorities to be? How should they balance the need of our constituents to gain access to the programmes that they want to watch with the interest of commercial broadcasters to sell their programmes to as many of us as possible? I want Parliament to be fully involved in the early stages of the debate, helping to shape the ground rules rather than leaving Back Benchers to moan and whinge on behalf of their constituents when proposals have been finalised. My predecessor was fobbed off by statements that digital television did not provide a solution--not, I suggest, because of technical difficulties, but because the carve-up of the frequency spectrum had taken place without due regard for the needs of his constituents. I believe that my Digital Television Broadcasting Bill offers one way forward. In a recent survey in my constituency newsletter, 80 per cent. of respondents supported it, although it is clear that they are interested in the ends rather than the means.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |