HC Deb 22 March 1968 vol 761 cc869-80

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

I raise this afternoon a matter of considerable importance to many people in my constituency, which causes concern in many parts of the South-West, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset. This is an administrative matter, and I do not wish to raise party political points, in the hope that, in this manner, I may obtain some direct help and co-operation from the Postmaster-General. The B.B.C. Handbook for 1968 contains, on page 41, under the heading, "Television Enterprise", the words: Every television country abroad wants British television programmes—more each year… I do not doubt that this is so, but there is a considerable number of British people who want the programmes of the British television services. They want them to be available and their reception to be reliable and visible.

Television reception and the lack of services in the South-West must be as bad as anywhere in the country. In this area of Devon, Dorset and Cornwall, which covers nearly 1½ million people, I estimate that no more than two-thirds, at the very most, receive a good signal from B.B.C.1 and none of these can receive B.B.C.2. This is a heavy indictment, and I turn now to my list of complaints.

In my constituency of Honiton, complaints come from people and local authorities in many towns—from Budleigh Salterton, from Sidmouth, from Beer and from Seaton. In Seaton the council has been brought into action, feeling very strongly, because a petition has been raised with over 400 signatures from a very small community. It is suggested that rebates should be made on the licence fee because the only way they can get a decent signal is by paying for wired television. In Colaton Raleigh, the parish council says that the reception is poor, especially in summer. The B.B.C. has suggested that this can be corrected by proper erection and alignment of aerials. But this has been looked into by the council, which finds that it makes the service no better. In Dalwood, Axminster and Colyton, the local authority is calling together nearly all the local councils for a protest meeting on bad television reception and inadequacies of service some time this month.

This is not just a local matter. The Devon Association of Parish Councils is in touch with the B.B.C. It has written to the Corporation stating: The problem is not confined to the summer months, when, it seems, interference under certain weather conditions has to be accepted on B.B.C.1. The quality of reception during the year ranges from ghost-signals to continued interruption and lack of 'hold' through to the worst case of hardly any picture at all. A Cornish Member said to me only yesterday that people in certain areas of Cornwall were so tired of complaining that they had nearly given up in disgust.

It is not just my part of Devon, but outside my constituency in Devon, in Ivy-bridge, Kingsteignton, where, it is claimed that reception is unsatisfactory to the majority, Kingsbridge and North Devon—they all complain.

I realise the difficulties of a very high frequency signal reaching into some of the valleys and the coves on the coast of the South-West, but the Postmaster-General knows that it is technically possible to overcome these problems. While claiming that this can be done, I must in all fairness thank the Minister for the relay station which the B.B.C. is building at Sidmouth to deal with the local problem. But even this innovation will not produce B.B.C. 2. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us the exact date on which the Sidmouth relay station will be in operation?

There is considerable interference, particularly in summer months, from foreign stations. What action does the Postmaster-General intend to take either to renegotiate or co-operate—perhaps by altering wavebands—with some of the foreign nations, particularly France, to overcome the problem?

In North Devon many people do nothing but complain that all they can receive is Indeed to goodness, a signal from the Taffies and Davis's, the Llewellyns and the Thomases across the Bristol Channel. It is maddening to the Devonians to be subjected to certain of the railings of the Welsh. They ask that this position be corrected.

In passing, I should like to stress, although it is not part of my main contention, that on the planned maps for coloured television—and I have them here—even by the end of 1971 the largest, most densely populated area without either B.B.C. 2 or colour television is Devon.

The change from v.h.f. to ultra high frequency, the new 625 line system, may mean no major improvement in reception in many areas—and this is an especial problem—because of the extra problems of u.h.f. in overcoming physical geographical barriers in order to extend its signals.

What improvement does the Postmaster-General plan? Will he say, either now or later in writing, when he expects the Sidmouth B.B.C. relay to be available? Will he say when he expects the Stockland I.T.A. mast to be used for B.B.C. 2, or is another site being sought? Will he say when the Caradon B.B.C. 2 transmitter will be working, or has the latter project, perhaps because of devaluation, been put back from the projected date of the winter of 1968–69.

In view of the shocking service on B.B.C. 1 and the complete lack of ability to receive B.B.C. 2, it would seem obvious to any logical person that there should be a two-tier system of broadcast licensing. As I have already said, nowhere in the area of which I speak is anyone able to receive this programme; yet the B.B.C. prides itself, and has reason to, on the manner in which it plans the presentation of viewing material between B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2.

On this balance I again quote from the B.B.C. Handbook. It says on page 38: Thus, when B.B.C. 1 is deep in sport, B.B.C. 2 might offer light entertainment or drama; when B.B.C. 1 has a serious documentary or a current affairs programme, B.B.C. 2 can show golf, jazz or a Western film. B.B.C. 2 can also devote whole evenings to single topics…In the course of a day it is estimated that over twenty-six million people watch one or more of the B.B.C. television programmes. In the South-West 1½ million people have no opportunity of obtaining planned viewing on which the B.B.C. prides itself.

At the moment the licence fee in £5. I have in my file a guarantee from the Postmaster-General that this fee will not be raised until 1968. We are now in 1968 and I am afraid that it seems likely that an increase may not be far away. Why cannot there be a reduction in fee for those people who are not obtaining the full services of the B.B.C.? There could perhaps be a reduction from £5 to £3 or, if the Postmaster-General has to be a Shylock and take his pound of flesh, what about a fall-back position from £5 to £4, a £1 reduction?

If one owns a dog, one does not expect to pay one licence fee for all the dogs in the household but 7s. 6d. for each. On a very much more costly scale one is required to pay £25 for a car licence. If one has two cars the fee is £50. That goes on according to the number of cars one uses on the roads. Therefore, if one is unable to receive the services which the B.B.C. provides, why should one not have some reduction? If the Postmaster-General argues that this is impossible at the moment I would press him a little further. When—I am afraid it may not be too far off—there is an increase in the licence fee, whether to £6 or £7, will he please ensure that there is a differential so that those who cannot receive B.B.C. 2 are not press-ganged into having to meet the total increase?

The Government have already accepted that there can be a split licence fee for television. There is a £5 charge for ordinary radio and television and a further £5 for those who receive colour television. Therefore, the principle has been breached. At £10 for the full services this is the most expensive licence fee in the whole of Europe. In Germany and France there is no extra charge for colour television reception. If the Postmaster-General should argue, as he might well do, that it is impossible to take this action at the moment because the Act does not allow it, I would point out that he is in the Government. I have no doubt that the House would give immediate and rapid progress to any Amendment or Bill which would allow him to institute a split television fee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Member cannot introduce a request fror legislation in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Emery

I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was suggesting that in some way the Government could introduce a split rate which would be acceptable to the House. I am sure that point might be taken by the Postmaster-General. All I suggest is that he should manage the situation properly.

There are three other small questions to which I should like an answer. Will the Assistant Postmaster-General tell me whether the Post Office is considering any action whereby the G.P.O. will be able to provide, either independently or perhaps as part of any new telephone cable laying it might be carrying out, a wired television service, the type of service which at the moment is provided commercially? This has particular importance, because it would make reception in certain cove areas a possibility. Indeed, if people are to be encouraged commercially to provide this service they must know what is in the mind of the G.P.O.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there are any plans to increase the power of the signal of the different I.T.A. and B.B.C. stations within the South-West, which would overcome some of the problems which I have outlined this afternoon?

Lastly, may I ask him what action he has already started in ensuring that he is working with the Devon, Cornish and Dorset planning authorities to ensure full agreement and co-ordination on the sites in these areas—perhaps up to 30; certainly between 15 and 25, costing probably over £3 million—which will be required for the full transmission of the u.h.f 625 line television signal?

It is important that this co-ordination should start immediately in order that the amenities of each area and the demands of the people can be co-ordinated without having massive public objections which, if they should give rise to public inquiries, may well delay the commencement of the new services beyond the projected dates. Will the hon. Gentleman also tell me what he thinks these dates might be?

Therefore, to sum up, I ask the assistant Postmaster-General what hope he can hold out to the hundreds of thousands of people who are rightly complaining about the bad television reception in Devon, Cornwall and parts of Dorset. How much longer will they have to be without B.B.C.2? Are they to be the last part of the country to have this balanced B.B.C. viewing? How much longer are they going to have to pay up for the inefficient service that they receive?

If the Assistant Postmaster-General has to say that little can be done to provide an early transmission of B.B.C.2, can he assure the South-West that when any increase of licence fee is announced the people who cannot receive the second B.B.C. programme are not subjected to such an impost?

4.17 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) for raising this afternoon the question of television reception in the South-West. I further compliment him upon the way in which he has presented his case on behalf of the people he represents.

The hon. Member's general point is, of course, that in Devon there are people who get no television or who can only get a poor picture; and that, even though the total percentage of the population who are covered by B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. is so high, this is no consolation for those who are not covered.

We must, however, recognise that to ask for complete, 100 per cent. coverage by a broadcast signal would be to ask for perfection. I wish that we could reach that position, but we cannot.

Now let us look at the position in the South-West. The South-West is served by two main B.B.C. 1 stations supported by four relay stations. Two more relay stations are nearing completion. They serve the area from around Honiton to the west, but in the north and east, in Somerset, Dorset and part of Devon, the B.B.C. service is received from Wenvoe in South Wales. The I.T.A. have two main stations and a relay station which is shortly to open. There is, at present, no service of B.B.C. 2. I will come back to this service later. The South-West is, however, an extensive area and much of it is hilly or mountainous. In this sort of terrain it is specially difficult to provide coverage.

There is a further condition that affects television reception, and one to which the South-West is at present more prone. I refer to interference from foreign stations, which is particularly noticeable in the summertime or in periods of settled weather, and known to the experts as "sporadic E" interference.

Nevertheless both B.B.C. and I.T.A. look for improvement when they open their three new relay stations in the South-West.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the B.B.C. station at Sidmouth is to open on 8th April. The I.T.A. station at Huntshaw Cross, which will improve reception in the Barnstaple and Bideford area, will open later the same month. The third relay station, to serve the Weymouth area, will open in 1969.

There is something more to say about the Sidmouth station. It will serve 12,000 people in Sidmouth, Sidbury and Sidford. Because of the compelling need to avoid interference with other stations, it could not be designed to serve a wider area and a bigger population. There have been suggestions that its power should be raised. But, as I have explained, this would result in interference elsewhere. In choosing the site the B.B.C. was well aware of the disappointment of the people of Seaton who had hoped to, but who will not, benefit by the relay station. The B.B.C. tells me, however, that it was simply not possible to build a station of such power as would serve both places.

The hon. Member has referred to the complaints made by the Devon Association of Parish Councils about the reception of television generally and in a number of particular places. Obviously, the broadcasting organisations—the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.—are both anxious to provide the widest possible coverage and the best possible reception. They want their programmes to be received. They want them to be enjoyed. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that they are complacent about the quality of reception at places from which there is complaint. I have explained what they are doing and why they cannot do more immediately to help. There may, however, still be something that the viewers can do for themselves.

Sometimes we tend to suppose that it is only at the transmitting end of the business that the trouble lies. But it can, of course, be at the receiving end. Sets and aerials are not always efficient. Reception can often be improved by the use of more efficient outside aerials mounted as high as possible in positions avoiding the screening effect of nearby obstacles in the direction of the transmitting station. The B.B.C. and the local radio dealers can and do give helpful advice on ways of improving the efficiency of viewers' equipment.

The hon. Member has referred especially to the fact that viewers in the South-West do not yet have B.B.C. 2. This service is due to reach the South-West early in 1969 with the opening at Caradon Hill of a station to serve 390,000 people from and including Plymouth far into Cornwall. The Mendip Station, which will open a few months later, will improve the existing service from Wenvoe in the north-eastern parts of Somerset along the Bristol Channel.

Other stations will follow, taking their place in the programme of development of the B.B.C. 2 service in all those parts of the country where it has still to be provided. But this will take time. Let me explain why it must do so. Once again, I must ask the House to look at the whole picture.

To carry the B.B.C.2 programmes to all parts of the country is a major engineering feat. Sixty-four main and some hundreds of smaller relay stations have to be built. The resources to carry this out are limited, first by the money that can be spent in any one year and second by the availability of the physical resources of the skilled labour needed to manufacture, install and commission the electronic equipment required. But there is more to this than the construction programme of the transmitting stations alone; they have to be able to receive the programmes from the studios where they are produced. So additional engineering work, which once again has to be carried out in carefully planned and successive stages, is needed to carry the programmes throughout the country in order that they can be sent to viewers over the air. In this large-scale planning operation, the B.B.C.'s policy is to bring the service to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. This means that the first stations have been built to serve large numbers of people, and those that can only serve smaller numbers come later. Surely, this is right. The alternative would be to insist that millions of people must wait for the additional service until the programme of station building to serve the whole country was complete, or virtually so. This explains why the South-West had to wait. So too, of course, have other parts of the country.

It also explains why the East Cornwall station will precede those to be erected to serve East and South Devon. As it will bring the B.B.C. 2 programmes to twice as many people, it is right that it should come first.

Finally—perhaps this is the right week to do so—I should say something about money. It has been suggested that in the South-West and where B.B.C. 2 is not available there should be a lower licence fee. Sometimes, the argument is put in the form that the licence fee should be varied according to the service that can be received. Another suggestion is that someone, other than the viewer, should pay for special measures to improve reception in areas which would benefit from such measures. At a first sight, these ideas have their attractions. But, when one takes a closer look at them, the difficulties become apparent.

In law, the licence confers simply the right to instal and use a receiver. What the viewer or listener can receive is quite another thing. Behind the legal principle are considerations of quite compelling practical weight. If one were to go for a licence fee which varied according to the number of programmes which could be received, this variation would have to be available to anyone who could genuinely say that he could not get this or that service. The concession could not be confined to particular and well defined areas. For anyone who could make out a credible case to the effect that he could not get this or that service, the concession would have to be allowed.

But reception can vary. It can vary from place to place. Within a given locality, it can vary from street to street, and even from house to house. It can vary from time to time. It can vary according to the quality of the receiver purchased, and the state of its maintenance. In short, it could be represented from places all over the country, even within the general reception area of B.B.C. 2, that the service could not be received, or that it could not be satisfactorily received. This might or might not be true; and, if true, it might or might not have anything to do with the transmission of the service.

There are some 18 million licences in force. A system which—in the circumstances I have described—required, for equitable administration, the verification of claims that a service was not receivable, or not satisfactorily receivable, would be utterly unworkable. Let me mention an example. Quite recently, a lady complained that she could not get a B.B.C. service. At considerable expense, an engineer went to see what was wrong. The lady needed a new battery for her set.

I ask the House to bear another point in mind. Once one admits that licence fees might vary with the services receivable, one opens the question whether they might vary for other reasons. One such reason might be that it costs much more to bring broadcasting services to people in some parts of the country than it does to those in other parts. Hon. Members will realise that the average cost per household of providing the services in the big conurbations is small, a few shillings per household. In the remoter places, it is often a great deal more. If licence fees could vary with the services received, might it not be asked whether they should vary with the cost of provision?

As things are, the licence fee system certainly has its element of "swings and roundabouts". Though, in general, people living in the remoter places have to wait longer for services, it costs a great deal more to provide them with services. Admittedly, the licence fee system is a by-and-large system. But I suggest that, by and large, it is fair.

Now, two other points. First, the hon. Member asked about the progress being made in piping radio and television into people's homes.

Mr. Emery

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that the argument he is propounding has already been breached in that there are now two factors of charge, for colour television and for black and white?

Mr. Slater

We are dealing at the moment with B.B.C. 1 and B.B.B.2, the question which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman. He has asked me about progress made in piping radio and television into people's homes. The experiment which the Post Office has just started in the new town of Washington will have to run its course before any conclusions can be drawn about the future possibilities. Relay services are available and in use in the South-West and it is for the people living there to decide whether or not to make use of those services. I should, perhaps, emphasise that the need for relay services, with the expense involved, is not confined to the South-West but is widespread.

Second, the hon. Member has referred to parts of North Devon which can receive the Welsh programme from Wen- voe. But Wenvoe sends out the B.B.C. 1 national programme with the South and West programmes on Channel 5; this is intended to reach the south side of the Bristol Channel. It also sends out the B.B.C. 1 Welsh programme on Channel 13 which, although this is not intended, may be received in the South-West. If the hon. Member would send me particulars of the case he has in mind, or if he would ask his constituent to get in touch with the B.B.C., it can be investigated.

I shall examine the other points on which I have not touched and reply to the hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, I repeat that I am sure that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are anxious to do all they reasonably can to make their services available as widely and as satisfactorily as possible for the general public throughout the country.

Mr. Emery

May I press the hon. Gentleman on the other point, of which I have given him notice and on which he has strongly argued that it is impossible to differentiate within the single licence fee system? Does he not realise that his own Government and the B.B.C. have accepted a breach in uniformity in that there is an extra charge for B.B.C. colour? Can he not apply that to the argument which he has been propounding?

Mr. Slater

We could not accept that argument at all. I could use the other argument, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Carried to its logical conclusion, the consequence would be that people living in his area would, in all probability, have to meet a higher licence charge for reception of B.B.C. 1 and 2 as compared with people living in the more compact areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.