§ 18. Mr. Coulsonasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the concern about the poor reception of British Broadcasting Corporation television in the Hull area; and if he will take steps to improve reception; and if he will give consideration to the introduction of a television licence rebate scheme in the area.
§ 31. Mr. Duffyasked the Postmaster-Geenral if he is aware that the reception of British Broadcasting Corporation television in the East Riding of Yorkshire is suffering again from bad interference this summer; and why remedial action has not been taken.
§ Mr. BevinsI hope that reception in the Hull area will be improved when the new B.B.C. Band III television station at Belmont, Lincolnshire, comes into service about the end of next year.
The B.B.C. tells me that reception at Filey will be improved when its Scarborough Band III station comes into service next year.
203 I am afraid that it would not be practicable to vary television licence fees according to reception conditions.
§ Mr. CoulsonWhile thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this appalling interference on B.B.C. television in the summer months has been going on for several years and that there has been no improvement? As a result, there is considerable feeling among many of my constituents about the fact that they have to pay the same licence fee for one programme as many other people pay for three programmes. Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, reconsider the possibility of introducing a rebate scheme?
§ Mr. BevinsI do not think that it is feasible to work out a scheme of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend, but I am fairly confident that when the new Belmont station is in operation—as I say, it will be in operation by the end of next year—there will be a very big improvement.
Mr. DaffyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Bridlington, Flamborough and Scarborough areas television reception in summer between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. is too bad and that this has been going on for summer after summer? Interference now is quite chronic. Viewers are in a state of rebellion about having to pay the full licence fee. They know all the reasons for this because they have been given them year after year by the public relations officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. What they want is not promises about remedial action but action as soon as possible.
§ Mr. BevinsI indicated in my reply that action would be taken as soon as possible in that part of Yorkshire.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsOn a point of order. I am wondering why the Table accepted Question No. 19 in exactly the same words as Question No. 22. I can understand—
§ Mr. SpeakerWhen we get there, some matter might arise. At present we are still dealing with supplementary questions to Question No. 18.
§ Mr. Robert CookeIs my right hon. Friend aware that my screen looks distinctly woozy at weekends and has done for some weeks past? My interest is in 204 south-west England where reception apparently has been equally bad compared with reception in other hon. Members' areas. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, too?
§ Mr. BevinsYes, Sir.
§ Mr. RossIs the Postmaster-General aware that this interference and the concern about it is not limited to this area? It is widespread. We in the west of Scotland certainly have serious complaints about it. May we be given an assurance by the Government that something is being done, apart from the usual notice that we see stating, "Do not adjust your set. The trouble is due to foreign interference."? This is very annoying and there is a feeling that nothing is being done about it.
§ Mr. BevinsI appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman said. I am in touch with the B.B.C. from time to time urging it to take all practicable steps to put this right.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith regard to the point of order raised prematurely by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), the Question is on the Order Paper because it is in order. It is not out of order because other Questions are in the same terms.