§ Mr. RowlandsI beg to move amendment No. 224, in line 12, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) below',
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 225, in page 27, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall keep under separate review in relation to television services in Wales the matters specified in subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iii) above; and for this purpose the Secretary of State may require the Commission, the Welsh Authority and the BBC to furnish him under paragraph (1)(b) above with separate reports on those matters as they relate to Wales.'.
§ Mr. RowlandsThese amendments seek to institute a separate review for Wales on the issue of switching off analogue and switching on digital. It is especially necessary that the Welsh aspects of the development of digital services should be the subject of a separate review. Much excitement has been expressed throughout the Bill's passage about the potential of digital terrestrial broadcasting, but how many viewers in Wales will digital services reach, and—crucially—when? Those are the facts of television life in Welsh terms, which worry any of us who are interested in broadcasting or the overwhelming majority of people who view television.
In Welsh terms, digital coverage will be physically difficult and expensive. Our services are currently delivered from six main transmitters and 187 relay stations. As I said in Committee, in Wales we have 20 per cent. of the relay stations in the United Kingdom, with 5 per cent. of the population. Going digital will therefore be expensive, and might be delayed. Such delays would cause considerable concern.
I do not know whether the Minister has read the annexes to the ITC's consultation document on the delivery of digital services. Annexe 2 lists the transmitters and relay stations that make up the ITC's minimum requirement for anyone bidding for the service. Obviously, the ITC will require the six main transmitters, but I am astonished—I hope that the Minister will share my astonishment—that the minimum requirement that any operator seeking to develop digital services must fulfil relates to only three of the 187 relay stations. Those are Aberdare, Pontypool and Kilvey, Swansea. That means that more than 30 per cent. of the digital audience coverage will not be required by the ITC.
804 Such a scenario raises more serious issues relating to the switching off of analogue and the switching on of digital services in Wales. It appears that, if only the ITC's minimum requirements are met, nearly 1 million people in the Glamorgan and Gwent valleys will not have access to digital through relays.
There is an additional complication. I speak of my own valley. I live almost next to a relay station, at Thomastown in Merthyr. The valleys receive analogue through relays from the Wenvoe transmitter. How can one switch Wenvoe off analogue and on to digital unless all the relay stations that feed off Wenvoe are tooled up to receive digital? It is an extremely difficult, complicated and worrying position; a potential nightmare.
When viewers start to realise the problems, difficulties and delays that will be involved in delivering digital services to the four corners of our nation, there will be increasing anger and frustration. There will be considerable concern in every household if we experience such problems.
There will be extra frustration and difficulty, because we have offered digital television as a solution to the tension that has begun to grow, especially in Gwent, as a result of the feelings of deprivation of those who do not receive Channel 4. That sentiment is expressed widely in the overwhelmingly English-speaking communities. We have said to them, "Hang on folks, you will have Channel 4 as a separate service when digital comes. The difficulties and the problems are capable of being resolved in the not too distant future. Come digital, we shall have the opportunity to have a completely separate Channel 4 service."
The Minister has said that he has read the address by Geraint Talfan Davies, who made the point that approximately 35 per cent. of Welsh households have the opportunity to opt out of Welsh services and to connect, through the transmitter in the north-west, out of Welsh services altogether. In fact, that has already happened along many parts of the south coast and in the Newport area because people want Channel 4. It has not been good for the Welsh broadcasting scene—it has threatened its identity. Digital was supposed to be the answer. However, we are concerned that we shall not get digital services in Wales in the time scale that we had hoped if a determined effort—it will be a costly effort—is not made.
In addition to that deprivation, there will be another in January: when the new Channel 5 starts to run, large portions of Wales will not be able to receive it. The map that I have in my hand shows which areas will not be able to receive Channel 5. People will have considerable problems receiving it, even with digital. Channel 5 has asked the Minister—he has not won his battle with the Department of Trade and Industry, if I can describe it in those terms—whether it can have channel 35 to extend its scope. Channel 5 is searching for frequencies that might deliver its service to a wider audience.
Potentially, we shall find ourselves incapable of switching from analogue to digital in the time scale that many other parts of the country will be able to meet. Complications and costs affect our transmission system. In addition, increasing tensions will build up over the Channel 4 issue, and they will be compounded by the inability of large parts of Wales to receive the new Channel 5 in analogue, let alone in digital.
§ Sir Wyn RobertsI am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the topography of Wales does not 805 readily lend itself to complete television coverage. In addition, he will be aware of the fact that many parts of Wales are still in receipt of the VHF service, when the rest of Wales happily enjoys the UHF service.
§ Mr. RowlandsI appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge in that regard—he followed those matters closely when he was a Minister in the Welsh Office. However, he will agree that there is virtually total television coverage in Wales, and that that has been provided through the relay stations. The digital services will not be provided in the time scale that we had hoped because of the cost and the considerable technical difficulties.
On 19 June, the Committee debated new clause 36, and the Minister sent me a reply to the debate—I do not know whether he sent a letter to the other members of the Committee. He stated:
viewers in several parts of the country would not be able to receive Channel 5.He continued:it remains open to Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited to supplement coverage of their licence via cable and satellite and it is only by those means that all of Wales could receive Channel 5.That is a serious statement, because it looks as if the vast majority of Welsh television viewers should choose either cable or satellite to get the new range of programmes and services.
§ Mr. RowlandsThat is true, so satellite will be the solution. Viewers will have to decide whether to spend money on a satellite or on set-top boxes and the rest of it. That could have a profound effect on the broadcasters, who are expected to deliver digital terrestrial services throughout Wales. There will be increasing arguments as to whether we should try to deliver them by satellite or by digital terrestrial. The Minister has admitted, with regard to Channel 5, that viewers will have to turn to satellite. There will be a lot of ambivalence and ambiguity about the way in which terrestrial services are provided in Wales.
Even bigger questions will be raised. For example, if people become totally dependent on satellite, what will happen when security issues arise? I do not want to forecast a war, but during such a crisis, the quality of the terrestrial services is not usually affected. However, viewers who receive their television services by satellite will face serious issues in relation to national security and defence in times of crisis.
I do not want to end my speech on that gloomy and doomsday note. I plead with the Minister to carry out the review. Every conceivable pressure should be put on multiplex operators to go out and deliver—no matter how difficult and expensive it might be—the digital terrestrial services to Wales, which the rest of the United Kingdom will have in the not too distant future. If that does not happen, people's sense of being deprived of television—which has always been under the surface in many of our broadcasting debates in Wales—will grow with intensity.
§ Mr. DafisI congratulate the Labour party Front Bench and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on tabling the amendments. I am not normally in a congratulatory mood in relation to the Labour party in Wales these days, but the amendments are important. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, the designation of half a multiplex to S4C has been welcomed as a major achievement. It will provide an important resource for broadcasting in Wales, and it will benefit not only the viewers of S4C but the whole broadcasting scene in Wales.
As we have delved into this situation, we have begun to understand the concerns in relation to the extent of coverage of Wales by digital terrestrial. We are back to what Geraint Talfan Davies identified as one of the big issues in Welsh broadcasting: transmitters. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the ITC document of 22 May which refers to potential multiplex providers. It has been suggested to me that the document is too optimistic. There are also questions about the level of competence of the document.
The document includes maps that show the extent of the coverage for the first three multiplexes—A, B and C—and, as one looks at them, one sees progressively less coverage of Wales. The third is pretty disastrous so far as the coverage of Wales is concerned. A broad band of territory—it extends from north-west Wales, including most of Anglesey, through the centre of the country, to the south-east—will not get digital, unless something is done about the transmission system. That includes Cardiff—it looks as though it will not be able to access digital through the multiplex—and much of Glamorgan.
I discussed the technical reasons for that in Committee. It seems that the existing transmitters—and the boosters to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred—do not have the capacity for digital. Their capacity is taken up entirely by the existing analogue service. That has major implications for the viability of S4C and Channel 5 in Wales and their ability to develop.
If multiplex C—and therefore S4C—is available in the south-east only if people tune into the Mendip transmitter, that will have tremendous implications for the audiences of HTV and BBC Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has mentioned that issue. That matter must be addressed and I ask the Minister to announce tonight what solution the Government will offer. Has he considered the matter that I raised in Committee about using microwave technology? It seems to offer a solution—it would take time and it would involve co-operation between various agencies, but it is an important area.
I referred previously to the DTI working groups that are currently studying the new high frequencies on the 40 gigahertz microwave band. That involves using transmitters that are located every five miles—the same kind that are used for cellular phones. A complete network of such transmitters would facilitate the eventual removal of the 50 huge main transmitters throughout the United Kingdom. Those transmitters are an eyesore and they emit a great deal of electromagnetic energy.
Another advantage of microwave technology is that the adjacent band—43 gigahertz—has been provisionally set aside for wireless interactive services, the Internet, multimedia and so on. If the Department of National Heritage cannot think of a better way of providing 807 coverage in Wales—if it can, we should hear about it tonight; it is important that we are confident that the Government know what they are doing in that regard—it should pursue energetically the microwave technology option. It could facilitate that through co-operation with the DTI and with the Welsh and Scottish Offices.
I turn to another matter of concern involving the transmission of analogue services and its funding implications. I have already discussed that issue with the Minister, but I shall go over that ground again briefly. When S4C was made responsible for paying for transmission under the Broadcasting Act 1990, a miscalculation occurred—that has been clearly established—and, as a result, there was underfunding in relation to transmission costs. That was compensated for by an error in the drafting of the 1990 legislation that provided funding for S4C from 1 January. That funding more than compensated for the loss arising from the miscalculation that I have mentioned.
This legislation will affect the 1 January funding, which will no longer apply. I understand that it cannot apply and I do not seek to change that decision. However, I am seeking a commitment from the Government that the proper level of funding—no more than that—for the transmission of analogue will be restored. It is not a matter of greed or of making unreasonable demands; it is simply a matter of normalising the funding on the basis of what was agreed in 1990.
The Minister has sent me a letter about the matter—I am grateful to him for allowing me to quote from it. His response is important and quite promising. He says:
it is open to S4C—at any time—to make a case to the Secretary of State for support with their analogue transmission costs".That is fine—I accept the Minister's assurance and I am satisfied with it. However, he goes on to refer to S4C's opportunities for meeting the cost of the digital service. He says:While we will study carefully any case S4C make to the Secretary of State for further financial assistance for transmission costs, it is only fair that I reiterate my view that the digital capacity and commercial freedoms offered by the Bill will enable the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority to raise significant sums for the benefit of their public service remit".That is okay, but I emphasise that those sums should be viewed as a means of enabling S4C to meet the additional demands of digitalisation. That is what they are for. I am concerned about the costs of analogue and of analogue transmission. It is clear that that will remain the primary means of providing S4C in Wales for many years. I ask the Minister to elucidate the next sentence of his letter. He says:we envisage that the provisions which enable the Secretary of State to increase S4C's funding to assist transmission costs would only be used if the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority had made its case to the Department's satisfaction that it had exhausted all other sources of revenue for meeting these costs".The Minister seems to be saying that, if the Welsh channel could show that it had exhausted all other means, it could look for a positive response from the DNH in relation to extra funding.The Government have made it clear in debate both in the other place and in Committee that, by changing the basis of S4C funding to the retail prices index, they intend to provide stability of funding—they do not intend to cause any reduction. "Stability" implies a process whereby S4C could go to the DNH on the basis of a clear 808 understanding of its financial position and prospects in the confident expectation that its requests would meet with a positive response. That is what "stability" implies to me.
If the Minister does not mean that and if S4C would fail to receive funding in those circumstances, it is important to understand that S4C would face a significant funding cut. That is the reality and we might as well face it—S4C would have a reduced capacity to meet its programming obligations under the analogue system. In order to facilitate planning and stable provision, I seek confirmation from the Minister that, if and when that situation arises, S4C will receive a positive response.
§ Mr. SproatThe amendments would introduce special arrangements for Wales in the review of prospects for analogue switch-off, but that is unnecessary. The review that we propose—as set out clearly in clause 29—encompasses the whole of the United Kingdom. The key factor in determining a timetable for analogue switch-off will be the availability, in digital form, of the public service channel to all viewers, wherever they may live. The availability of the services to people in Wales will be as important as their availability elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is no need to make extra, special provisions for any part of the United Kingdom because the whole of the United Kingdom will be considered in the review. That is the short and straightforward answer, but I understand why the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who educated me in Committee on certain aspects of the Bill, have—quite properly—used the debate to raise one or two wider questions.
On the question of coverage, ITC frequency planning is not yet complete. The ITC will ask the applicants to operate channel 35 to make clear their plans for the time when more relay will be available.
§ Mr. RowlandsI am worried because the ITC is making such a minimum initial demand. Why does not it make a much greater demand and let the operators prove that they cannot reach that demand? The ITC will do the reverse and tell operators the minimum they have to do, but ask them to let it know if they can do more. That is the wrong way round.
§ Mr. SproatThe ITC does not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he is at liberty to suggest that it is not asking enough. I shall draw his comments to its attention, but it has considered the point and believes that its way will be best.
§ Mr. DafisThe problem is that if the ITC asked for the use of all the main transmitters and all the relays, it would have difficulty in providing transmission because there is not enough space or frequencies on those transmitters and boosters to provide digital alongside analogue. As soon as analogue is switched off everything will be fine, but some people will not have a digital set and they will not receive any television broadcasts. That is an important gap.
§ Mr. SproatAnalogue will not be switched off until an equivalent bulk of the population is capable of receiving digital. I enunciated that principle many times in Committee and it will be the basis for any switch-off.
809 The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about channel 35 and its effect on Channel 5. Of course, I am aware that the ITC has proposed that channel 35 should be available to Channel 5. We are considering that point urgently with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is in his place and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said in Committee that he was in favour of channel 35 being used to spread Channel 5 to a much wider area in the south of England and almost every part of the United Kingdom has an interest in the issue, not just Wales. I can assure hon. Members that the issue of the use of channel 35 is one that both Departments are considering closely. We are aware of the attractions of usage by Channel 5 and the other uses to which channel 35 could be put.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned microwave bands and he properly raised that important subject in Committee. We take the subject seriously and the key determinant of analogue switch-off is the availability of the public service channels to all who wish to view them. The means by which they are received is secondary to that. If cable, satellite or other forms of transmission, such as microwave delivery, are practical, I hope that the broadcasters will explore them.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North asked what assurance I could give about assistance for future S4C transmission costs. He will know that clause 75 will roll over into the Bill the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 that allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide additional funding over and above the statutory formula funding if she is satisfied that that is necessary with regard to the costs of transmission. Indeed, it will extend the 1990 Act provision by specifying that the additional funding can cover the cost of digital as well as analogue transmission. Clearly, the exercise of any such provision will require detailed discussion with S4C about costs and alternative sources of funding, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned when he quoted from my letter. I cannot give him many guarantees about funding, if any. If S4C believes that there is a case to be made, it should make that case, with the help of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, to my Department.
I hope that, given those assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. RowlandsI hope that the worst of our worries and our gloomiest predictions will not come true. If they do, we will be back not only with a new Bill, but with new arguments and new frustrations. In the light of need to proceed with the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: No. 64, in page 27, line 19, after `Digital' insert 'the qualifying teletext service'.—[Mr. Sproat.]