Previous Section Index Home Page

23 Jan 2008 : Column 488WH—continued

While the JNCC did not favour such an approach per se, its revised advice recommended 16 native species of birds, which is very much reduced from the numbers that my hon. Friend has quoted and the current list of 59 species. The JNCC list contains seven birds of prey and nine other species. The issue became whether bird registration was a proportionate burden for the keepers of these particular species. In order to assess that, issues such as the value of the species, their longevity and any demand for keeping needed to be taken into account. It
23 Jan 2008 : Column 489WH
is obvious that there is no point maintaining birds on this list if nobody is collecting or trading in those particular species.

Having taken all those factors into account, there is merit in maintaining the bird registration scheme in England, but for a very much more limited number of birds. Pending further discussions with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations, that number should include species such as the goshawk, the golden eagle and the marsh harrier. I do not believe that a conservation case can be made for all the other species that are currently listed.

Ms Angela C. Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Joan Ruddock: Since I seem to be keeping within my time, I will.

Ms Smith: The peregrine falcon may well be increasing in numbers nationally, but there are hotspots in the UK, including the area that I represent, in which the peregrine falcon is completely absent. Wildlife crime is rampant in the north-east Peak district. Surely taking the peregrine falcon off the scheme would send out the wrong signal to people who want to commit wildlife crime?

Joan Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend that the peregrine falcon is a valuable and iconic bird that could potentially be the subject of wildlife crime. However, we have no evidence to prove that having peregrine falcons and other birds on schedule 4 has resulted in preventing crime. We believe that much else has changed, particularly the captive breeding of birds. The trade can be supplied legitimately and properly from the birds that are bred within this country and from where trade occurs from that stock, which is here.

Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend that I see merit in having the scheme. I have written to the devolved Administrations—peregrine falcons are obviously very important in Scotland—to see whether we have listed the right birds to remain on the scheme. That is the position that I propose today and more work needs to be done. I am at the end of my time.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con): Will the Minister give way?

Joan Ruddock: No, I am sorry.

I see merit in retaining the scheme. It is my intention that schedule 4 provisions should continue, but that there should be fewer birds on the list. We will see whether we can simplify the two systems of registration, CITES and bird registration, to ensure minimal burdens on keepers.

23 Jan 2008 : Column 490WH

Television Reception (Rushden)

4.45 pm

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a pleasure, Mr. Caton, to serve under your chairmanship. I hope that we have saved the best for last.

I thank Mr. Speaker for granting a debate on the great mystery of Rushden—the whodunnit of Rushden, and probably the crime of the century there. It involves deception and lack of reception. It involves large organisations, cover-ups and conspiracies. We know who the suspects are. One is the Government, in their shining offices in Whitehall. The other is a developer in Rushden—or is it the council in Thrapston, or even the regulator in his shining offices in London? Or, as I think possible, is it the European Union and the European Commission in Brussels?

There has been a huge theft. It has affected hundreds of people in my constituency who have lost financially and lost their quality of life. It is on such a large scale that it is inconceivable, but like many such things, it has been allowed to drift. It involves the theft of the television signal in The Hedges and the roads around it in Rushden.

I have been stumbling around trying to find a solution, more like Inspector Clouseau than Inspector Morse. Now that I know which Minister is to answer the debate, I am sure that she will rise like Sherlock Holmes to explain the crime, how it happened, who the victims are, what compensation there will be and how things will be put right.

The loss of the television signal in The Hedges was brought to my attention by Councillor Carol Childs, a member of Rushden town council who lives on that road. I praise Mrs. Childs for her efforts. She has campaigned tirelessly for the past year to try to get something done to help the people in her street. Indeed, I know that she is following this debate closely.

When I was told of the problem, I contacted East Northamptonshire district council, the relevant planning authority. The chief executive of the council confirmed to me in a letter of 22 November 2006 that television reception was not considered a material consideration in the determination of a planning application for two large industrial warehouses to be built behind The Hedges.

I had hoped to receive help from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), who had a similar problem in his area. I would like to say that he has been abducted and cannot assist in this debate, but he has been detained in a Select Committee meeting, which, in a way, is just as bad.

Planning consent was granted to the developer without considering the potential loss of television signal to householders adjacent to the new development.

I go back to what actually happened, and to the autumn—not of last year but the year before. On one evening, the good citizens of The Hedges were watching their normal evening programmes—probably watching the excellent programme on the Parliament channel, which gives the people raw politics without distortion—and they went happily to bed knowing about the state of the country and what was happening. In the morning, they got up, switched on their television sets—and nothing. Well, some of them got a wintry scene, with snow going across their sets, but there was no picture.

23 Jan 2008 : Column 491WH

It sounds as though it might have been a minor thing that could have sorted itself out the following day, but it did not. What did the people of The Hedges do? Just as we would have done, they assumed that it was a problem with the television set, so many of them rushed out to buy new sets, or to see whether a repair man could sort it out. Of course, that was pointless. It was nothing to do with their equipment. The television signal had been stolen.

The developer—a major developer, not a small one—admitted that TV signal interference sometimes happened with buildings of that size due to the materials used in construction, but it did not provide any remedial action on the residents’ behalf. The developer claims that it is not its fault if the planning authority did not take TV reception into consideration when granting planning consent.

Ofcom was also involved at that time, because East Northamptonshire district council thought that it should have dealt with the matter, as it had in other cases. Ofcom, however, said that it was a matter for the local planning authority, so the buck had already been passed from one organisation to another, with none of them taking responsibility or owning up to the crime. That led me to table parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the role of Ofcom when a television signal is lost or badly impaired due to new construction. The then Minister, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, replied that the issues that I had raised were the responsibility of Ofcom, and passed my queries on to it.

The chief executive of Ofcom wrote a letter to me on 21 February that makes the matter even more confusing. It states:

Although I have been told by the Government and the planning authority that the problem is Ofcom’s responsibility, Ofcom clearly states that it has nothing to do with it. I suppose that, like many regulatory authorities, it does not want to take responsibility for anything.

The letter raises an important point. Ofcom says that there is no statutory obligation on planning authorities to take TV signal disruption into account when considering planning consent. That needs to be addressed immediately, and I shall refer to that later in my request to the Minister. I am not getting anywhere very quickly with the various organisations all blaming each other and none of them taking responsibility for solving the problem for my constituents. A public meeting was held in Rushden, which was well attended by affected residents and local councillors. I praise Councillor Andy Mercer, the able and hard-working leader of East Northamptonshire district council. He got involved with the mystery and tried to solve it. I am grateful to him for all his work on this issue and many others in my constituency, where he has been at the forefront of my “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” campaign.

Following the well-attended public protest meeting, a petition was formed, which I presented to Parliament on 15 March 2007. I thought, “That should do the
23 Jan 2008 : Column 492WH
trick; the Minister will respond and the matter will be resolved.” The petition urged the House of Commons to ask the Secretary of State to initiate an investigation into the matter with the aim of finding a solution that would restore a quality television signal. The Secretary of State’s reply was taken largely from the letter I received from Ofcom. The only new piece of information given by the Secretary of State was that:

So, we are asking the victims of the crime to negotiate with one of the chief suspects. That is a novel idea. Once again, we are led around in circles. The planning authority blames Ofcom. The Government blame Ofcom, although they say that Ofcom is powerless to do anything about this issue anyway. Ofcom blames the planning authority. The developer refuses to take any responsibility because planning consent was given. All the while, my constituents are losing out. My constituents have lost their TV signal, yet they are still being forced to pay the TV licence fee.

Another hard-working local councillor, Councillor Robin Underwood, contacted the ombudsman, yet it washed its hands of the matter and said that it had nothing to do with the ombudsman. After a number of other parliamentary questions that I tabled to the Secretary of State regarding guidance to local planning authorities, I had still got no further in seeking a solution to the great Rushden mystery. Then it came to me in a flash of genius that Inspector Morse would have been proud of—it must be the fault of the European Union. Clearly, as we are part of this transnational, unaccountable superstate, it loves interfering in everything that we do. Surely, as TV signals do not recognise national boundaries, the European Union must have rules on the matter.

As luck would have it, later today in the House of Commons we are considering European Union document No. 15869/07. Lo and behold, it is entitled “Communication”. Surely this was it. This would be the solution to our whodunnit, but alas no. When I looked at the document, I saw that it was the usual incomprehensible Euro-babble promoting intercultural dialogue. My constituents in Rushden are worried not so much about intercultural dialogue as about when they will next be able to see “EastEnders”. Despite nearly 16,000 new European regulations last year, not one will solve the theft of the TV signal in Rushden, but I suppose the European Union cannot be guilty, as the Commission would not even know where Northamptonshire was.

Enough is enough. Solving the Hound of the Baskervilles mystery was easy for Sherlock Holmes, and I know that in a little while the Minister will solve this whodunnit. For more than a year, my constituents have experienced organisations that should take some responsibility denying responsibility, blaming others and passing the buck. It is not so much a case of Colonel Mustard in the library; it is probably the developer in Rushden or the Government in Whitehall. It is a whodunnit with no obvious solution. Perhaps they are all guilty, as in “Murder on the Orient Express.”

The buck has to stop somewhere, and unfortunately it has to stop with the Government. Only the Government are in the unique position of being able to introduce legislation so that the theft of television signals does not
23 Jan 2008 : Column 493WH
happen to others. Only the Government can intervene on behalf of my constituents with the developers to find an immediate solution. Only the Government can urge Ofcom to lay down statutory guidelines for planning authorities to use when considering proposals for large developments and the effects that they might have on existing television reception. Furthermore, in case planning consent is given and there is a problem with television reception, a condition of the planning consent should be that the developer must correct such a problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, if he had been here today, would have said that in his situation, in which a wind farm was put up that later affected the television signal, the wind farm put it right. As we have heard, however, there is no legal requirement for it to do that. Only the Government can ensure that my constituents get a refund on their television licence fee. For more than a year, they have dutifully paid for the television licence, but received no signal whatever. It is a whodunnit. It is a crime. There are victims. I look forward to the Minister, or Sherlock Holmes, solving it.

4.59 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Margaret Hodge): I think I shall be Hercule Poirot this afternoon, or perhaps some woman detective.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on his success in securing this debate and on his graphic and passionate description of the problems that his constituents face. It goes without saying that once people have paid for their television licence, they expect to be able to access their favourite television programmes. We all know that televisions are an important part of people’s lives. In fact, the most recent Ofcom figures suggest that, on average, people watch about three and a half hours of television each day. Public service broadcasting is the most popular end of the market, with public service programmes making up two thirds of viewing. I can readily understand that the inability of his constituents to receive analogue signals will lead to huge discontent and have every sympathy with the position in which they find themselves.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue several times with several people in several organisations, and although it is nice to think that the buck stops with the Government, particularly in the context of a Westminster Hall debate, there is actually a clear statutory framework. I was rather surprised when preparing for today’s debate to learn that the elements of that framework have not been used, and I suggest that he might like to think further about that.

The hon. Gentleman might ask why I am answering the debate, because, in essence, this is a planning matter—it sits firmly in that realm. I hope that if I set out the respective responsibilities of all those with an interest in the problem, it may help him to help his constituents.

First, the issue is about management of the spectrum, and that includes reception and interference. I realise that the hon. Gentleman knows this, but, just to put it on the record, those are the responsibilities of Ofcom, not the Government. Ofcom operates within the terms of the Communications Act 2003. Under that Act, as he pointed out—I believe it was stated in a letter that he
23 Jan 2008 : Column 494WH
received from Ofcom—Ofcom does not have statutory powers to investigate situations where television reception is disrupted by physical structures such as a building. The reason for that is that the powers lie elsewhere. It is not that the powers do not exist but that they lie within the planning regime, where they can be used flexibly and appropriately.

5.2 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

5.17 pm

On resuming—

Margaret Hodge: After calling myself Hercule Poirot at the start of the debate, I have decided to re-christen myself Miss Marple.

I was dealing with Ofcom’s statutory power before the sitting was suspended. Ofcom does not have a statutory power to intervene when television reception is disrupted, because that power is vested elsewhere. It would not be sensible to have a legislative duplication of authority across different bodies.

Mr. Bone: That is an interesting statement, because East Northamptonshire district council says that Ofcom has the power to investigate under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and that it has used the power in previous cases. However, for some reason it has refused to do so in this case—it is passing the parcel.

Margaret Hodge: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. He will have seen my officials shaking their heads, and it is the first that I have heard of the matter.

The powers are vested with the local authority. As the hon. Gentleman told his story, it struck me that the local authority had not used its powers properly in the past, and it is not using its existing powers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him about remedial action, but the authority is simply not using its power, and I fail to understand why that is the case. I sincerely urge the hon. Gentleman to go back to his local authority on those matters.

I said that this was planning matter. Ofcom recommends that planning authorities take into account the potential for disruption to TV reception when they consider planning applications for large structures. As the hon. Gentleman said, the situation is not unique. He raised the issue of the wind farm in Kettering, and similar issues were raised when the new Wembley stadium was being built. We know about such circumstances and we have a legislative infrastructure in place. We want to be sensitive enough so that local authorities operating at the local level can take the appropriate action to meet local circumstances.

Ofcom publishes technical guidance on the effects of tall buildings and structures on television reception, and that guidance appears on the BBC website. The Department for Communities and Local Government has responsibility for planning, and it might be helpful to reiterate for the record—the hon. Gentleman can look this up in Hansard—the planning policy on interference from buildings. Planning policy guidance note 8 on telecommunications sets out the Government’s policies
23 Jan 2008 : Column 495WH
on different aspects of planning that should be taken into account by local planning authorities as they prepare their development plans. The guidance can be material to decisions on individual applications for planning permission appeals, and it recognises that large structures can cause disruptions to analogue television reception. It states that local planning authorities

Next Section Index Home Page