| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.15 am
Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing this important debate, and on his comprehensive and distinguished presentation of his case. His speech enables other hon. Members to speak more briefly than we might otherwise have done, as he covered so many of the relevant angles. Therefore, I shall not touch on the technical issues--they are not my strong point anyway--as my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) have dealt with them skilfully and eloquently. I shall concentrate on the way in which the problem affects the day-to-day lives of my constituents.
I came to the Wirral in 1990. I began campaigning on this matter as a private citizen before I entered Parliament, and have continued to campaign ever since. When I wrote to the television companies at the beginning of the decade about the problem, broadly speaking I was told that the companies' charter required them to cover about 95 per cent. of the population, and that my area belonged to the remaining 5 per cent. That was the end of that, as far as the companies were concerned.
That will not do. As has been explained, in the Wirral, we get our television from Wales and from the midlands. No matter how fond we are of those areas--and notwithstanding the distinguished connections with Wirral grammar school mentioned earlier--such programming is not relevant to people living in the peninsula. The problem is not new, and it gives rise to a heavy postbag. People in pubs and clubs constantly ask me about it. It may seem a frivolous matter, but it is far from that: it is important both to the community, and in terms of professional life.
Other hon. Members have described their areas' regional identities. The Wirral perceives itself, traditionally, as part of Cheshire, although formally it belongs to Merseyside. What it is not is part of the midlands or Wales.
It is not a question merely of wanting appropriate regional television coverage, but of needing it. There is the question of safety, for example. My constituency has many chemical plants--GATX and Lubrizol, for example, which handle chlorine and dioxins, and another chlorine plant at ICI Runcorn. There is also a nuclear facility at Capenhurst, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
As an example, the Health and Safety Executive's guidance on the radiation emergency regulations requires news of emergencies to be relayed by television. People in my constituency--more than 2,000 could be affected--would not receive such warnings if they went out on
television covering the north-west. For example, many learned about the danger of polluted water only after the problem had been solved. That is not good enough.
The inability to receive appropriate television has other consequences, and regional news is an obvious case in point. People in my area want to hear the news as it affects their families and localities. We are interested in Cardiff and Wolverhampton, but not keenly. We want to know about the weather in our areas, not in someone else's: with great respect, it is not important to us that it is raining in Swansea or West Bromwich. When we watch football, we want to see Tranmere Rovers, Liverpool or Everton. Good though they are, Cardiff City and Birmingham City are not so important to us.
When my constituents travel to work through the Mersey tunnel, they want to know what weather will affect their journeys, and they are not particularly concerned about Machynlleth or Dudley. People want local traffic information, and local television programmes are a lifeline--a vital source of local information.
It is disorienting not to have regional services, and it may affect people professionally. Obviously, for example, it affects journalists if they cannot know what is going on around them. It affects politicians, too. I cannot see local political coverage--that is particularly distressing when I am on it! I could not see my own by-election on television, and that is ludicrous.
The lack of services may also affect builders. Watching television in the morning, they may not know whether they need to go to an indoor or outdoor working site because they are not seeing the right news and weather. One builder had a warehouse that burned down during the night, but he still turned up the morning because it had not been on the news.
The point is that this situation is ludicrous. To put it simplistically, people cannot understand how we can remotely repair a space probe on Mars, but not have appropriate regional television. I have raised the situation with the BBC, ITV and the Independent Television Commission at levels high and low, technical and policy. But I have made little progress, and less than my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for North-West Norfolk.
Many issues surround any long-term solution. We may be able to consider coverage in the digital age when next we consider broadcasting legislation. However, there is a short-term problem, too. I receive many letters and complaints from people who feel that these problems have gone on far too long. Some constituents are considering withholding part of their licence fees. The idea of direct action does not sit comfortably with the burghers of Heswall and Gayton, and that is a measure of their frustration about a democratic deficit that disfranchises them. A television transmitter is clearly visible across the Dee, and people cannot understand why it cannot bring television coverage to them.
We must reconsider the priorities for the roll-out of television, whether for digital or for any future system. My constituents have tried all sorts of things--aerials 100 yd high, boosters and technical advice of all descriptions. None of it works. I make a simple cri de coeur on behalf of the people of the Wirral who think it is not too much to ask that they should receive appropriate regional television.
10.23 am
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
I do not understand too much of the technical side of these issues, but I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which has deliberated at length on broadcasting issues. Last year, we published a wide-ranging report on the multi-media revolution, many aspects of which the Government should carefully consider.
Many parts of my constituency cannot receive Channel 5, which is a great pity. Many parts of London also receive a poor range of services, and there is a major problem in terms of coverage across the country. The current digital revolution will have a profound effect on our society in many ways. The Government's intention, stated many times, is that, we should have an information-rich and socially inclusive society. However, I have enormous concern that, if the coverage of channels across the country remains as patchy as at present, the delivery of a full range of public services will not be received by all. That is a great pity.
As has been adequately articulated across the Chamber, regional broadcasting is vitally important to many communities, both urban and rural. Many people gain the information that they need every day of their lives to go about their business and undertake their social interests and tasks.
We live in a technological age--a digital age. We must first address the social implications of the issues of inclusion and exclusion that the debate begins to unfold. Chris Smith recently announced that he is to set up a regulators forum--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that we refer to right hon. and hon. Members by their constituency titles, not by name.
Mr. Fraser:
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has recently announced that he will set up a regulators forum to improve co-operation between the regulatory bodies involved in broadcasting. It will include the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, the Office of Telecommunications and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. Will that body be responsible for addressing the need for further transmitters to ensure that digital coverage is universally received, as against the current situation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield(Mr. Fabricant) has pointed out that we await the Government's announcement of a date for analogue switch-off so that the industry can better plan coverage. I mean not only industry organisations that deliver services, but those that produce sets and equipment. An awful lot of television sets are not compatible. My own is many years old, and I will take a lot of persuasion before changing it so that I know that I will receive a proper delivery of service.
Analogue switch-off has the potential for greater geographical coverage, but that potential can be fulfilled only with analogue switch-off, as the available power of the multiplexes is in danger of interfering with analogue television. The Select Committee report stated:
Finally, I want to make a plea for minority viewers, a subject referred to briefly by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Their situation illustrates the issues relating to delivery of public services. Specifically, I plead for the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, with which I have communicated, and which has put its case extremely well.
"We consider that the issue of analogue switch-off should be taken forward not in isolation but in the wider context of the future of universal access."
28 Apr 1999 : Column 271
I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that point.
The Government must allow the digital industry to improve coverage so that in future, the 0.6 per cent. of homes that have never received any television can receive some at the quality and standard that should be received by all.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |