HC Deb 17 October 1973 vol 861 cc375-82

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)

May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate tonight on what may not be quite so important an issue as some we have debated in this House but nevertheless is an issue which will affect not only my constituents in the town of Shaw but many others, according to the Minister. I refer to the question of television reception.

I know there are many, about whom we read, who say that there is too much television and that people watch television at all hours of the day and night when they could be doing what are considered to be better things. But I do not accept this very often intellectual view of life in this country, because of the happiness and pleasure which television brings to very many people.

The reason for the debate is the lack of acceptable television reception in a certain part of Shaw in my constituency, but according to the Minister that lack applies equally to hundreds and possibly thousands of other areas in the country, because the Minister wrote to me in a letter dated 21st August 1973: … even when this planned programme —he was referring to a programme that is at present envisaged for putting in some 500 new transmitters— has been completed, as we expect by 1980, there will still be small pockets of population, which might number some hundreds". In other words, there might well be thousands at this time. Therefore, when I saw that this situation applies not only to Shaw in my own constituency but also to other parts of it, such as the town of Littleborough, I realised that without any doubt there are many other towns in the country where people have the same kind of problem.

I believe that on his own admission the Minister is, in effect, conspiring with the BBC to take money by way of licence fees under false pretences, and he is doing it in many parts of the country. I do not think that is too strong language to use, because there is no other way of describing what is clearly a form of legalised robbery—that is to say, charging a licence fee for something that you do not supply.

It is an undisputed fact that the television reception in this part of this town is terrible. I do not even need to quote my own constituents about it. I need only quote the Minister himself. He said in the same letter to which I referred earlier: I do appreciate that, despite the fact that there are several transmitters in the area, because of the local topography Shaw is not well served. He is absolutely right about that. The area in the town of Shaw to which I refer is Wrens Nest, where there are some 100 or more houses which have problems and the firm of Rediffusion who looked into the matter for me say that there could well be significantly more. Near to this estate there are two council estates where they have a communal aerial for cable TV, but the people in the private houses have been told that it would not be economic to join in. In fact, I checked with the firm of Rediffusion, and they were good enough to do some tests for me at short notice which indicated that there is an acceptable signal only 200 to 300 yards away which could be used as a source. They have made a rough estimate that if 100 per cent. of the people concerned took this form of television, the capital cost would be some £15 to £30 per house or 10p to 15p per week. They emphasise that that is a rough survey and that that might not be the exact figure, but that would be the approximate cost.

When I raised the case with the Minister he, in effect, abdicated his responsibilities and stated that the prospects for this town—and, presumably for many thousands of others—were bleak. In that same letter he wrote: So far as improvement in off air reception is concerned I am bound to say straight away that the prospects for Shaw are bleak. When I complained in rather stronger terms to him about that reply, he told me in another letter that the area of which I am talking is "hilly, even mountainous." I am sure that it will have come as a great surprise to the residents of the area to learn that they are living in a mountainous zone. I believe—and I have already told the Minister this—that his reply is totally unsatisfactory to the people of my constituency, and indeed to many others. They want action, not a message of "no hope", which is what the Minister gave in his replies.

It seems from the information that I have been given that the operation of communal cable TV can do the job. I believe that it should be used and that it should be paid for by the BBC, out of the licence fee which they are charging and for which they are not supplying my constituents with acceptable reception.

12.5 a.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden)

The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) has quite properly and understandably spoke on behalf of those of his constituents who do not get all the degree of television reception which they would naturally wish to have. I fully recognise the disappointment that people in his constituency feel that they are not getting the reception they want at the moment.

I thought it right in the correspondence that we have had together to set the case out very clearly indeed because I am sure he will agree that it would be very wrong to have misled them in any way at all. I thought it right, therefore, to spell out the technical and the financial limitations which are imposed at the present time.

There are, as he said, general principles raised by the case that he deployed on behalf of his constituents. The provision of a television service is an extremely complicated technical operation and is one in which the BBC and the IBA have done their level best to meet the requirements placed on them. Their actual performance, their record so far, was reviewed last year by my Television Advisory Committee which reported that both the broadcasting authorities had, from a starting date in 1969, already provided three colour television services to over 90 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. In fact, the present figure exceeds 93 per cent. This is, of course, in addition to the near universal coverage attained by the 405 line black-and-white services. But it is primarily about colour that the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and it is about the lack of colour services with which his constituents are concerned, so I will restrict my comments to that subject.

The House will recognise that the whole question has to be set against the background of a frequency plan devised so that the channels which are available are used to the best advantage of the largest number of people. Unfortunately, there are never enough frequencies which can be used at all the places at which the broadcasting authorities might wish to build stations. Television signals have their own characteristics which, with the best will in the world, Governments cannot alter. Wherever there are steep hills, even if they do not quite come up to the level of mountains, and valleys, there are places which present topographical difficulties and which are difficult to serve.

This applies in the Pennines in Lancashire as it does in Wales, Scotland and the Peak District. So the main UHF television transmitting station at Winter Hill which radiates 500 kilowatts of power has to be supported by at least 20 low-power relay stations, built to fill in gaps in the coverage. Six of these relay stations have already been built to serve places in the general area which includes Shaw.

In completing a programme of building over 400 television stations, there has to be some order of priorities. The priorities adopted by the broadcasting authorities are to extend the service to the largest numbers of people as quickly as possible while maintaining a geographical balance between the different parts of the country. It is not possible to do everything at once and so nearly 4 million people are still outside the range of the television colour services.

It will take up to 1980 before the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. complete their present plans for building UHF relay stations and there will remain a number of places for which a supplementary building programme will be necessary. I recognise that a large number of people are still waiting for the colour services to reach them. I wish that were not so and I know that the BBC and the IBA are as anxious as anybody to see coverage extended and more viewers satisfied. But there are limits to what they can do.

I hope to receive further advice on the priorities which should be adopted in extending the television services when the Committee on Broadcasting Coverage which I set up under the chairmanship of Sir Stewart Crawford reports in the early part of next year. As I have said in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, it would however be less than honest to leave the impression that improved reception in the Shaw area is only a matter of time. There are particular difficulties here. The frequencies available for colour television are used over and over again at different stations. The stations must be built so that one station does not cause interference to another. A large number of relay stations are needed in this particular part of Lancashire with its hills and valleys.

At present it is by no means certain that it will be possible to establish a station especially to serve Shaw because it may not be possible to find frequency channels which can be used there without causing interference to and receiving interference from other stations in the neighbourhood. Here again, the report of my Television Advisory Committee dealt in general terms with the problem, of which Shaw is an example. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 17 of its report, which deals with the UHF programme and in particular to the part at the end of the paragraph where it says: Because frequencies are scarce and suitable sites in urban areas impossible to find in anything like the number that would be required, it will not be practicable to resolve the difficulty by building additional transmitting stations to ensure that over the total area no viewer gets a signal which is Jess than that aimed at in planning. For the people materially affected, the solution will lie either in their installing more elaborate aerials or more sensitive receiving equipment; or —this is the point to which the hon. Gentleman will wish to pay particular attention— in their using common aerials so sited as to avoid screening. Both solutions are, of course, already in common use for the reception of 625-line transmissions on UHF and of 405-line transmissions on VHF. This offers a solution to the problems of places such as Shaw, as I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman.

The remedy is to install an aerial in a place where signals can be received and carry them on wires to the houses. The hon. Gentleman has already said that an acceptable signal is possibly 200 to 300 yards away and has estimated the costs involved in bringing the cable to carry out a job of that kind. He implied that it was the job of the BBC to finance that operation out of licence fee revenue. This, of course, as I know he understands, is a misinterpretation of the purpose for which the licence fee is paid. The licence fee is paid in order to enable the recipient to have a receiving set and to operate his own television receiving set in his own home. It does not guarantee the standard, quality or range of service. It is not related to the provision of a colour service as such, although there is a higher level of fee charged for those who wish to use a colour receiving set.

The point is that it is open to people now to instal for themselves aerials and wires such as I have decribed. This has been done on the council estates, and it is up to private householders to choose whether to do likewise. It is a solution which has been adopted in many other places besides the council estates at Shaw. Whether to adopt it is a decision for people to take for themselves. The choice is theirs.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is finding it difficult to face this fact. Clearly it is a matter for the individual householder to determine how much he is prepared to invest in order to bring to his home the additional services which that amount of investment could secure for him. As I say, having got the necessary installations on the council estates not so far away, probably it would be possible for the householders in the area most immediately affected to join in making a similar arrangement. But that is a matter for them to decide.

Looking at the situation over a wider area, as I have to do, as matters stand the BBC and the IBA will continue their building programmes, and will be opening new stations throughout the country as quickly as they can. But, for the reasons that I have given, the quality of reception cannot be uniform throughout the country, and I regret that there will always be places where reception is more difficult. It is in places of this kind, such as Shaw, that individual choice and effort will probably help to overcome the problem.

Mr. Joel Barnett

With the leave of the House. The Minister has given a miserable message to thousands of people up and down the country, especially the people of Shaw in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman boasted at the outset that some 93 per cent. of the people got very good television reception. That is not much consolation to the other 7 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there has to be some order of priorities. I do not disagree with him. There have to be, on this issue and on many others where the Government's order of priorities is very wrong. But it is a bit much to tell thousands of people that not only can they not get colour television until 1980 but that possibly they may never get decent reception. It is disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to say that—

Sir John Eden

I said that it was not possible to guarantee a 100 per cent provision throughout the country, given a whole variety of different topographical features, of all types of broadcasting on television which could be made available. There are bound to be places of special difficulty, such as Shaw, and individuals there can best help themselves.

Mr. Barnett

I do not doubt that there are mountainous areas where, unlike Shaw the topography could be difficult. I imagine that I shall not be the only person—I am sure there must be thousands of others—who will find it difficult to understand, when we have satellites that beam wonderful photographs all round the world in 1973, that even as late as 1980 many thousands of people still will not be able to get an acceptable television coverage.

The hon. Gentleman said that I proabably misinterpreted what the licence fee was paid for. Again, I doubt whether I am alone in that. I imagine that most people who pay a television licence fee expect to get a television picture. I do not think they are being unreasonable.

The hon. Gentleman said that paying the television licence fee does not guarantee quality. I am sure that many people are aware of that. Equally, there will be many people who think that it should guarantee quality and a satisfactory television picture.

I believe that the Minister has tonight sent out a miserable message to thousands of people and I, on their behalf, very much regret it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.