| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others raised questions about aerials. I shall deal with some of those points now. First, Ofcom estimates that only 10 per cent. of outdoor aerials might need to be improved in relation to receiving analogue signals. The actual number of aerials that might need to be upgraded for digital might be as low as 2 per cent.
In relation to the important
question of aerial contracts and the possible abuse of them as a result
of digital switchover, in March the Government launched the registered
digital installer scheme to instil in consumers a sense of trust in the
advice they are given when they seek help to upgrade their aerials.
Already, 250 installers are training for that and another 500 are
registered to undertake the training. It is important to add a codicil
that the RDI licensing body will have an
inspectorate that will investigate complaints, and that it has already
alerted trading standards officers to remind them of the need to
protect consumers in the run-up to digital
switchover.
Mr. Moore: I do not expect the Minister to have this information at his fingertips, but would he be able to let us know how many of those registered installers are in the Border television region at the moment and whereabouts they are? It is a vast area, and having access to those people is rather crucial.
Mr. Woodward: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question, and I shall be coming to it later. He was kind enough to extend an invitation to the region. I shall perhaps disappoint him by telling him that I have already been.
Mr. Moore: To Carlisle.
Mr. Woodward: I came to a conference specifically about some of the issues that were raised about the Border region as the first area for switchover. Many issues were raised and I spoke to a number of people who were involved in training in aerial installation. The numbers are increasing all the time but I am happy to maintain an ongoing correspondence with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, for one simple reason—we have to get it right, and I believe that we will, but it will be through dialogue rather than assumptions on my part or anybody else’s. It will happen. As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have had genuine issues raised either by their constituents or those in the industry, I extend the open invitation to make it an ongoing dialogue. It is in everybody’s interests that we get this right.
Mr. Moore: I welcome that statement. I do not want to be churlish about the visit that the Minister made to Carlisle. I want to point out, as I have already pointed out to some of the people who organised the conference, that it was hard for people from the Borders and the north-east of England to get to. The information is being fed to him, and I hope that he will have the chance to come back to us at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Woodward: I am sure, Sir John, that you will not want me to delay too long on the subject of invitations. We have nearly two years before switchover, and it is inconceivable that we will not spend time in the constituencies involved. I accept the invitation willingly.
Paul
Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): Sadly, the
invitation to the aerial installers’ conference was only
extended to the Chairman of the Select Committee, so the rest of us
ordinary members did not get the opportunity to go along. Clearly, the
market has recognised that, like the Select Committee, the Government
have made a brave and bold decision, which is very welcome. I am
concerned that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member
for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), is urging prevarication.
Within this ambitious and bold
timetable, the biggest potential variable in terms of cost is the cost
of aerial installation and the potential for abuse. Does my hon. Friend
agree that we must do all in our power to ensure that vulnerable people
do not suffer from cowboy
installers?
Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can only underline the importance of that. It is in nobody’s interest that we see anybody exploited. All hon. Members from all parties would rightly be concerned if vulnerable people, in particular, were exploited. We shall need to confront some issues that are not obvious examples of exploitation. For example, some hon. Members are concerned about the number of retailers that are still selling television sets that are only analogue compliant. Although we have a digital box scheme on hand, we might need some discussions with retailers to oblige them, when they sell a television set, to advise people—or if it is being sold online, to oblige retailers to use a pop-up—that the equipment they are buying will require further modification and incur further expense either for them or, if they fall under the Government’s targeted assistance scheme, for the Government.
We need to consider a number of issues to prevent not merely exploitation but people making genuine mistakes. By working through self-regulation rather than Government intervention, we can, I hope, get the outcome that we all want. It is important for all hon. Members to note that the Government will come down strongly on the side of protecting consumers and the most vulnerable.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Indeed, I posed a question during one of our hearings about the number of analogue TVs still being sold, particularly approaching Christmas. Is it not the case that his discussions with the industry should not only include the winding-down of the sales of the remaining analogue televisions, but encourage them to sell high-definition televisions as the norm? The more are produced, the cheaper the cost will be. We have already noticed a big reduction in the initial costs of those TVs.
Mr. Woodward: I recently got into trouble with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire in an Opposition debate for speaking at length. When I went back through the Hansard report, I found that I took 31 interventions, most from Conservative Members. I foolishly chose to reply to them in the way that I thought the House would want. I am conscious that if I reply to every comment about high-definition television, the hon. Gentleman will be at me once again.
Mr. Moss: No; do feel free.
Mr. Woodward: I shall try to resist that one.
Hon. Members raised the
question of residences of multiple occupation. That is an important
point, which was rightly raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee
and by the Committee. Landlords have
been upgrading communal television aerial systems since the launch of
digital television in 1998. By 2004, NOP estimates were that about one
third of the systems had been upgraded. None the less, progress is not
quick enough. It needs to move more quickly and we are in discussion
with the industry. With Digital UK, we have recently appointed Ross
Fraser, chief executive of HouseMark, which was established by the
National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing, to
chair a group of housing stakeholders to help advise Digital UK and the
Government on how best to reach all landlords in both the private and
social sectors.
Progress is an issue and will continue to be in some constituencies more than others. Although we will not begin the switchover programme for two years, constituencies will face the problem within the next two years and that must be addressed. I hope that Ross Fraser will help lead us through the problem, but the Government are already aware of it and acting to resolve it.
Hon. Members asked about the 1.5 per cent. of people who will not be able to receive DTT—another important issue. I remind the House that at the moment 1.5 per cent. of people cannot receive television pictures, although it has been pointed out that getting a poor picture on analogue is different from a poor picture on digital if it simply does not exist. We are aware of that, as are Ofcom and Digital UK. We are trying, as far as we can, to identify those households that may be affected. I say “may” because we are still in a speculative period, but for those hon. Members whose constituencies face switchover in two years, time is now moving quickly. I assure them that they are the focus of our attention, and that we will be addressing the problem. However, as I say, it is an ongoing dialogue, and we take the problem extremely seriously.
Mr. Whittingdale: Before the Minister leaves that point, will he assure me that he is also considering another group of people, whose existence was brought to my attention by the aerial industry—those remote communities that can receive television only because they have installed small, local relay transmitters? They are not part of the 1,154 network. I understand that it is not clear exactly where they are. Are the Government working to identify them, and will they then provide the help needed to convert those relays?
Mr. Woodward: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to self-help transmitters—
Mr. Whittingdale: Yes.
Mr. Woodward: I can tell him that there are 330 of them, and that Ofcom is looking into the situation. I hope, Sir John, that my answer impressed the hon. Gentleman. It shocked me.
I was asked whether the cost
should be met by the Exchequer rather than through the licence fee. I
know that hon. Members across the House have been concerned about that.
I appreciate the arguments, but I remain unconvinced of the conclusion
reached by some that it should be funded by the Exchequer. We believe
that it is a broadcasting cost. We also want to ensure that everybody
has access to all BBC services. Licence fee payers will benefit from
more choice, better picture quality and new services. That best fits
with the principle of maintaining universality of access to the
broadcasting system. It should be remembered that people buy their
television sets: we do not give them sets as part of the licence fee
arrangements. In our view, it is more analogous to the purchase of a
television set than to the receiving of the
programmes.
Paul Farrelly: Clearly that issue exercised the Committee more than most. In fact, during some of our discussions on tax theory and practice I found myself drifting off to the dreaming spires and the economic tutorials of half a lifetime ago.
Although we commended the Government on most of their recommendations, we did not agree on this one. Given subsequent debates about the licence fee, I fear that if the BBC were to fund it the issue would become even more of a political football. Another thing that exercises me is the question of accountability. If it goes wrong—if it is insufficient—can Ministers of whichever political hue simply blame the BBC? I note that in their response, the Government said that they are working with the BBC to address accountability issues. How does the Minister see those issues being resolved?
Sir John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. May I give the Minister some brief comfort? I have now been informed by the Clerk that following representations about the lack of air conditioning, the Speaker has ruled that the dress rule can be relaxed. If the Minister wishes to remove his jacket at this rather late stage, he is at liberty to do so, and other hon. Members may remove theirs.
Mr. Woodward: As always, Sir John, your characteristic generosity knows no bounds. I shall remove my jacket, not least because it will complete the picture being taken by the camera behind me—if the BBC is generous enough not to caricature it.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am unable to answer him as he would wish. Our discussions with the BBC are ongoing, but I do not want to give him a false sense of hope. We are committed to the present route. My hon. Friend should not expect it to change. None the less, I hear what he says.
Our discussions with the BBC on accountability, too, are ongoing. My hon. Friend will have the chance to ask the Secretary of State that question on Monday, and I am sure that he will wish to avail himself of that opportunity. He may be a little disappointed, and he may have to wait for clarity on the subject. However, I respect the question, and I believe that we will shortly be able to answer it.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the Select Committee Chairman asked about the sale of spectrum. We have not yet got a precise estimate. It is not possible at this stage to make a reliable assumption of the market value or of the potential auction proceeds of the spectrum to be released by the switchover. Indeed, it will be a matter primarily for Ofcom. However, it clearly has a value.
In answer to the questions
posed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—and,
perhaps, the hesitation that he encouraged—I would simply say
that there are values to be received by the Treasury. They are worth
having, and delaying and frustrating them will lead not only to a loss
of sales for the Treasury; it will lead also to a significant loss of
opportunity for the television and broadcasting industries, the
telecommunications industry and the other public service bodies that
would wish to make use of that spectrum.
It is necessary to provide clarity as soon as we can, within a decisive framework that recognises that we are dealing with a fast-moving target. The technologies that may wish to avail themselves of the use of spectrum are fast-changing, both in hardware and software, and the true value can be determined only once the spectrum space is available. It would be foolish to speculate on its value. Equally, it would be foolish simply to prevaricate for the sake of it.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister clarify something? He said that it is primarily a matter for Ofcom. Given that there are two options—one is the social benefit accruing from the use of the released spectrum, and the other is the economic benefit, largely to the Treasury—the Government have a key role in deciding which bit of the spectrum they intend to release for economic reasons and which for social. That, surely, is not for Ofcom to decide.
Mr. Woodward: The answer is yes and no. There are good reasons for that. It is important to recognise the nature of the fast-moving technology with which we are dealing. The anticipated value of the spectrum sale two years ago was very different from what it would be now, and I dare say it will be different in two years’ time. It will depend on the demands made of that spectrum space. The way spectrum is going in the long term, with the ability to get more and more on ever less width, is another dimension that has to be considered. In the pre-Budget report, the Government stated their position and declared policy that the future use of spectrum released through the digital switchover should be determined in a technology-neutral auction or auctions, and that Ofcom would apply administrative incentive pricing when spectrum had not been auctioned.
I suspect that this discussion could delay us a long time. I am happy for it to do so, but I imagine that some hon. Members would prefer me to enter into correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, which I would be pleased to do.
Mr. Moss: I commend the Minister for his honesty. This is the first time that we have heard from the lips of a Minister that this is being driven partly by the Treasury’s need to fill its black hole. Will he give us some indication in percentage terms of the impetus on the Treasury to get this thing through within the time limits, and the impetus on DCMS and the service industry to broaden out digital reception for the bulk of people?
Mr.
Woodward: I am obviously being invited to talk about the
state of the Government’s economic affairs; as you are aware,
Sir John, they are in excellent condition, thanks to the undoubted and
highly commendable prudence of the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman
invites me to talk about black holes, and no
doubt I could delay the Chamber for some time on the subject. However, I
have the feeling, Sir John, that you would quickly bring me to
order—
Sir John Butterfill (in the Chair): You are absolutely right.
Mr. Woodward: —and remind me that the subject of debate was the digital switchover, not the incompetence of the Conservative party, in government or otherwise. I shall therefore attend to the matters before us.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) on setting up his Borders digital forum, which is enlightened and right. The hon. Gentleman is bringing together the core people and focusing particularly on bodies in the voluntary sector that can help older constituents and those with disabilities. That is vital, and it is good to hear of their role. The hon. Gentleman is an example to everybody in leading his constituents in the right direction, to ensure that they are best able to take full advantage of digital switchover. As has been observed, the hon. Gentleman’s region will be the first to switch over, in the second half of 2008. I am a little cautious about the mention of 18 months; by my count, it will happen in 24 months, although my maths may not be as good as the hon. Gentleman’s.
We should get the expectation gap right; needs have to be addressed in respect of that. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) brought up the other dimensions of services, touching on high-speed broadband. We have a fast-moving target and we need to look closely at the correlation between digital switchover and high-speed broadband. It is perfectly clear that convergence is taking place between the creative industries—the broadcasting, digital games, film and music industries and others—and that services that have traditionally used analogue, or now digital, will also develop interactive programmes that require high-speed broadband. Such channels may well be offered.
The issue is moving fast, and a fast-moving target is before us, with which the Government are trying to keep pace. We will endeavour to do so and recognise the issues in respect of the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
Questions
were asked about the involvement of the Scottish Executive. We
are working with all Government Departments and the devolved
Administrations to ensure that they are fully engaged in the
process—particularly in helping to ensure that the public are as
informed they can be and that their television sets are converted on
time and as they should be. Of course, we always welcome advice from
hon. Members if they feel that, for example, the Scottish Executive are
not at the same speed as us. In a spirit of constructive dialogue I
say, let me know and we will deal with
it.
Questions were asked about energy use in respect of digital switchover. On Monday, I said in the House that we welcome the action taken by Intellect to support the use of energy labelling and investment in energy-efficient products. All hon. Members are becoming increasingly aware of such issues, and we shall play our part in ensuring that the industry factors in the energy issues and makes them a part of the digital switchover.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised questions about access to other television regions. Although we have no plans to change the boundaries of the ITV regions, I am happy, having noted his comments, to ensure that those representations are passed to Ofcom for further discussion. In a spirit of constructive dialogue, I am happy to enter into correspondence about suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I should say that those currently able to tune their aerials to more than one transmitter should be able to continue to do so after switchover, although, as now, they will need an aerial adjustment or upgrade to make the change.
I have tried to cover the points raised by hon. Members. This issue will be ongoing and we must recognise that, as we roll out switchover from 2008 to 2012, things will change. The Government have a duty to get the framework right and work with Digital UK, Ofcom and all partners to ensure that we get maximum benefits from digital switchover for all consumers and everybody who pays a licence fee.
We also have a duty to recognise the needs of the industry and those creating the many jobs in this country that will come from the benefits of switchover. At the same time, we should try to avoid any possibility of waste, which might be caused if switchover were delayed and if dual transmission, which would be money wasted, were to happen. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity for us to debate the issues again, and I welcome the Select Committee’s report.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |