TELEVISION RECEPTION, SWALEDALE AND WENSLEYDALE (Hansard, 5 May 1965)

§ Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the vexed question of television reception in Swaledale and Wensleydale, and I am pleased to see that the Assistant-Postmaster-General is here, with his intimate knowledge of this area, to reply. Both the attractive dales of Wensleydale and Swaledale are a long way from centres of entertainment. For this reason the need for adequate television recepton is most important. I have been in touch with the B.B.C. for about two-and-a-half years trying to get the Corporation to improve the television reception in this area, and I have a large file of complaints and also a considerable amount of correspondence with the B.B.C.
On 4th March last year the Director-General of the B.B.C. and senior management of the B.B.C. met representatives from the Aysgarth, Leyburn and Reeth councils to discuss the poor reception of television programmes in this area. It was then pointed out that one could get a reasonable reception only when the weather was foggy or when there was misty rain about. When there was a good clear sky or a bright day the reception was quite appalling. The result was that if the weather was fine enough to play cricket, one certainly could not watch it. I think that everyone will appreciate that that does not suit people living in Yorkshire.
One of the arguments which has been used against the improvement of the service is that few people in the area have television sets. Many people take the view that until reception is improved it is hardly worth them paying the television licence fee.
Following the meetings with representatives of the B.B.C., engineers went to Yorkshire to survey the area to see what improvements were necessary. One difficulty about reception in these areas is that the dales are very narrow. The hills are high on either side of the valley, and 1523 this makes it difficult to get a picture in the valley. The head of the B.B.C.'s engineering department suggested that to overcome the difficulty it would be necessary to erect two booster stations at a cost of about £30,000 each. It was considered that until there was an increase in the licence fee that could not be done?
I will quote from some letters which I have received from the B.B.C., since they all come back to the same point. The first, from Mr. Grisewood, Chief Assistant to the Director-General, written on 6th August, 1964, stated that, having studied the situation to see what could be done, the B.B.C. had … decided reluctantly that we should not proceed with any of the proposed stations until the amount of the receiving licence and of our income could be more firmly assessed. As soon as this uncertainty is resolved we should want to look again at the various stations proposed because we appreciate the importance to viewers in these areas of an improvement in their present B.B.C. service. On 1st September Mr. Grisewood again wrote to me, this time saying that nothing could then be done. He added: You may be sure that we shall ourselves lose no time in making our representations to the Government when the General Election is over. On 9th November, Mr. Turner, Head of the Engineering Information Department, wrote saying: Once the question of the licence fee has been resolved we shall look again at the various proposals that have been made for additional relay stations for B.B.C.1, beyond the plans already submitted to the Postmaster-General, and we shall certainly consider the needs of Swaledale and Wensleydale at that time. The Director-General of the B.B.C., Sir Hugh Greene, wrote to me on 7th January, 1965, stating: I can assure you that if we get the increased licence fee for which we have asked the Government, Wensleydale and Swaledale would be a top priority in the Stage 5 list of stations to improve the reception of B.B.C.1 in isolated areas. We should be able to continue as well with the rapid development of our new Channel. … I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree that from the tone of those letters it was reasonable to think that when the licence fee was increased every effort would be made to give areas with bad reception—or, as in the case of Swaledale and Wensleydale, virtually no reception at all—a reasonable service.
1524 I cannot believe that it is right that areas in the south of England should have two channels before some areas, in which the same licence fee is payable, can get even one channel properly. We should not press any further ahead with Channel 2 until a reasonable service is provided for all.
Some people who live around the lower end of Wensleydale subscribe to a wired relay service, but this is very expensive and for people living on old age pensions it is almost prohibitively dear. However, for those who can afford it it is better than nothing. An increasing number of people are, in despair, going to the expense of fitting external amplifiers in an effort to get reasonably strong reception.
I beg the Assistant Postmaster-General to use his powers to encourage the B.B.C. to erect the necessary booster stations before television services are extended to other areas. I appreciate that the B.B.C. has been hampered by the lack of capital for these additional works, but I hope, now that the licence fee has been increased, that this area will be given top priority. After all, it comes hard to people to have to pay an increased licence fee when they cannot receive even a reasonable television picture.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater)
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson)—who, it so happens, is my constituency neighbour—on the clarity with which he has presented this difficult problem. It is a problem in which he has taken a considerable interest. I think that I am right in saying that his main points are that television reception in Swaledale and Wensleydale should be improved, and that until B.B.C.1 can be received satisfactorily in all areas no money should be spent on the extension of B.B.C.2. In similar cases it has been suggested that where reception is unsatisfactory there should be a reduction in the licence fee. I hope that I can fully explain the position on these points tonight.
First, I assure the hon. Member that I well appreciate that the scattered communities in the dales, and indeed in some other parts of the country, would like improved reception of television programmes—which are often the only 1525 sources available of entertainment and in some cases of education. I hope also that the House will allow me to say on behalf of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. that they, as public corporations with a duty to provide their services as a public service, are well aware of the needs and difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred.
But let us look first at the overall picture. The House will be aware that the coverage of B.B.C.1 television has now been extended to about 99.7 per cent. of the population. I.T.A. coverage now extends to about 97 per cent. These are, by any standards, remarkable achievements, as I think the hon. Member will agree. It is a fact—for reasons which I will come to—that the nearer the services of the broadcasting authorities approach the full 100 per cent. covereage the more difficult it becomes of attainment. We are therefore bound to recognise that absolutely complete coverage is not a practical possibility and that there will always be some pockets where it is just not feasible to provide service.
The reason for this lies essentially in the characteristics of the very high frequencies used to provide the transmissions in question and the kind of terrain to be served. VHF transmissions follow, broadly speaking, a "line-of-sight" path. They are therefore impeded by intervening hills. The real problem lies in getting the programmes from the broadcasting stations down into the valleys, such as Swaledale and Wensleydale, which lie in the shadow of intervening hills. Increasing the power at which the signals are transmitted would do little, if anything, to help reception in the Swaledale and Wensleydale villages. This is not the problem. It arises from the screening effects of the hills which intervene between the transmitters and the receiving aerials.
If direct reception from the main transmitters is ruled out, there is the possibility of providing a low-power relay station. Such a station would have to be sited where it could, so to speak, "see" both the main station from which it would pick up the signal, and the dale village to which it would send it on. I am told by the B.B.C. that, for Swaledale and Wensleydale, the nature of the ground is such as to rule out the provision of satisfactory service in both dales 1526 from one low-power relay station and that two or more such stations would in all probability be required.
The hon. Member may therefore ask, "Why not get on and provide two or more relay stations?" He would be quite justified in putting that question. The answer is that the B.B.C. is bound to consider priorities in providing these stations.
There are other places in the country which have put in claims for service from relay stations, and the Corporation tells me that the claims of the dales are being considered along with those of other areas where the quality of reception is poor or where there is no service at all. I am informed that, when all these claims have been studied, the B.B.C. will consider a further stage, the stage 5 mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of its plan to extend and improve the coverage of B.B.C.1.
The House would not want me to minimise the problem of extending the coverage of the television services and so create an expectation that it can be easily and quickly solved. First, there are the technical difficulties. It is not always easy to find suitable sites on which to install these relay stations. As I have said, the requirements here are that the station should be so sited that it can pick up direct transmissions from another broadcasting station and rebroadcast them to the area to be served. These requirements are often conflicting. In hilly country, there are real problems as sites which are otherwise suitable may prove to be impractical on grounds of accessibility. But this problem, difficult though it is, is not, I believe, beyond the ingenuity of the broadcasting authorities.
I mention one other technical problem, that of frequencies. The House will know that a television broadcasting station covers an area, varying according to the power output of the station, of a mile or two up to about 40 to 50 miles. Stations using the same frequency have to be separated by a considerable distance to avoid causing serious mutual interference. Because the number of frequencies available for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. in the v.h.f. bands is limited, the planning of a large number of stations over the whole country to cover the 1527 largest possible percentage of the population is a highly complicated and highly technical operation calling for a great deal of skill, care and money.
There is then the question of cost. The provision of a relay station in the more inaccessible parts of the country becomes disproportionately costly in relation to the numbers of the population who would benefit. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend recently told the House that the cost of the latest stage of the development of B.B.C.1 represented about £10 per head of the population served, as compared with 1s. per head of the population for the B.B.C.'s first five stations. Licence holders in the cities and towns—I say this reluctantly—are, in effect, subsidising the cost of providing service to the outlying parts of the country. We have to face this fact. It is there. We ought to bear it in mind when we are asked whether it is fair that viewers and listeners in the remoter parts of the country who do not get the same quality of service everywhere as those in the more populous areas should pay the same licence fee, or that they should have to pay £5 for a licence before B.B.C.2 reaches them.
It has often been suggested that people who receive a poor television picture or who, in order to receive an acceptable picture, have to pay for services such as communal aerials or for facilities provided by the relay companies, should not be called upon to pay the same licence fee as is paid by the television viewer elsewhere who gets a satisfactory picture direct from the broadcasting station. This suggestion has been put forward and reexamined many times. It has always been found that the variation of the licence fee according to the reception conditions would be impracticable.
To decide what level of reception might be termed "unsatisfactory" would be very difficult. To fix fairly the boundaries of the areas in which reception was of the required standard would, I think, be impossible. Reception varies not only from place to place but also from time to time. Account would have to be taken not only of variations from town to town and village to village but of variations from one street to another even within a town or a village.
1528 However we look at it, we are forced to conclude that a variable fee system of this kind would be unworkable. This is the practical reality on which the present arrangements are founded; that is, that the licence fee is charged not in relation to the quality or amount of reception but because the licensee wants to install and use a set. This is not, of course, to say that the standard of reception does not matter. But it is the practical basis on which the licence system rests.
The hon. Member has argued, quite rightly, that the coverage of B.B.C.1 should be completed before money is spent on B.B.C.2 in places where B.B.C.1 and the I.T.A. services are already available. I can well understand the purpose that leads the hon. Member to make this point. But, with the best will in the world, I cannot think that one should put so extreme a construction upon it—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying this—for the effect would be to deny the second service to millions of people until all possible improvements to the first service were complete, no matter how few people were affected by them.
I am sorry that it is not possible for me to be more encouraging to the hon. Member and his constituents, but the task of extending television services to the parts of the country which do not at present enjoy them is no easy one.

§ Mr. Kitson
While I follow, and thoroughly appreciate, the hon. Gentleman's argument about the expense of bringing television services to an area like this where the B.B.C. has agreed that it will take two booster stations, I think that one must agree that people in towns can get the opportunities of other entertainment. As to the value of this, I think that people would pay even a little more if they could just get it, because they have no choice. In the rural districts there is no cinema round the corner. We ought to weigh this up when we consider whether these people are getting a much cheaper service in relation to the cost of providing it.

§ Mr. Slater
I can sympathise with the hon. Member's point of view in that regard, but I do not think that he can disagree with what I have already said, because it is factual. I should like to give every assistance possible to meet the 1529 demand that the hon. Gentleman has in mind for his constituents, but we have also to take into consideration the rest of the country which is just as badly served. As I indicated, some people are not even being served at all at the moment.
With the coverage attained by B.B.C.1 and the I.T.A. nearing 100 per cent., we are approaching the technical and economic limit to what can be done. I do not say that nothing more can be done: and, as I have said, the B.B.C.—I think that this is borne out by what the hon. Gentleman said about the interviews that he has had—is considering a further stage of its plan to extend and improve the coverage of B.B.C.1. In doing so, it will, I am sure—this is also borne out by what 1530 the hon. Gentleman said—keep the claims of Wensleydale and Swaledale in mind along with those of other places.
I am pleased to say that the I.T.A. expects that when the new higher mast at Emley Moor comes into service later this year, the reception of its programmes over a significant part of Swaledale and Wensleydale will improve, and I am sure that this improved service will be most satisfactory from the point of view of the reception of I.T.A. programmes for the people living in Wensleydale and Swaledale.