Digital Television (Hansard, 4 November 1999)

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should add that I own only an analogue television set and do not subscribe to any subscription channels.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the take-up of digital television by those who do not wish to subscribe to subscription channels.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord makes a general declaration of interest in local government terms which is not required to be followed by other noble Lords. We want to encourage the take-up of digital television by everyone, not just those who are willing and able to pay for subscription services. Our announcement setting out clear criteria for turning off the analogue signal should help drive forward the availability and affordability of digital receiving equipment. We shall review with the broadcasting industry ways of ensuring that consumers are fully informed of the benefits of digital television, know how to get the services they want and are reassured about the conditions to be met in advance of switch-over.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, given that National Economic Research Associates (NERA) estimate that the annual value of the spectrum locked up in analogue is worth of the order of £200 million a year, does the Minister agree that it is important to give every 982 encouragement to those who are least well off in society so that the take-up of digital sets is such that analogue switch-off is brought forward as far as possible? Does the noble Lord agree that failure to do so means that the income that the Government might derive from that spectrum will be deferred and, once deferred, will be wasted for ever?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I certainly agree it is important to bring forward analogue switch-off as far as possible, and we have set the criteria for that to be achieved. It is then for both the broadcasting industry and consumers to help to achieve the criteria we have laid down. I believe that it is premature to talk about any help for those in need. Let us see what business progress is made on switch-over.

Viscount Falkland
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the affordability of the new technology to which he referred relies to a great extent on the cost of the hardware, which is the television set? Does he agree that particularly in relation to local radio rather than television these sets are very expensive? Is it not the case that unless manufacturers make this equipment in larger runs the price will not come down very quickly? Does the Minister also agree that the idea of a supplementary licence fee for receiving digital is a further inhibiting factor in that area?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the noble Viscount's comment about the affordability of sets is certainly true. It is only when there is large-scale production that prices will come down. The industry has itself recognised that that is the case and is confident that it will be possible to achieve that. As to the second question, the Gavyn Davies Committee, which recommended a small supplementary licence fee of £1.99 a month for access to digital, did a great deal of research which convinced it that that would not have a serious delaying effect on the introduction of digital. The Government have still to reach a conclusion on the matter but they will do so as soon as possible.

§ Lord Montague of Oxford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Channel 3 cannot be received on satellite television? That is not made known to consumers and, I believe, should be. It would be good if that channel could be received. Can the Government do anything to influence the position?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, it is not, strictly, the responsibility of government. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating the issue. However, in the end it is a matter for broadcasters to sort out among themselves.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the manufacturers' trade association. Does the Minister agree that if we are to get the benefit of the research, development and manufacturing capacity in this country, there must be interoperability between the various sets? Does he also agree that at the 983 moment the danger lies in trying to create what the Secretary of State has termed "walled gardens"—that is, sets that can receive only one service—and missing that great opportunity? Should the Government not be leading a drive for free-to-air digital awareness? We are very pleased that the Secretary of State has called a meeting of the industry to try to break the deadlock.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is volunteering to answer those questions which I have properly referred to the broadcasting industry as its responsibility rather than the Government's. I hope that he will be on his feet as often as seems appropriate to achieve that. The Government are disappointed that interoperability has not been achieved. It was planned for May last year and still has not been achieved. We shall continue to use what influence we have to try to secure that.

§ Lord Ewing of Kirkford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not a chairman of any manufacturing industry association? Is he further aware that I am merely the humble holder of a television set who wonders whether all this new technology will produce a better quality of programme? Some of the rubbish we see on television today is unacceptable.

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I cannot promise that there will be an improvement in the quality of the programmes. There will certainly be an improvement in the quality of the picture, substantially more choice and quality advantages in the availability of interactivity between the customer and the broadcaster, as he is still called, and in Internet access. But, ultimately, all of us as users of television must fight for higher quality.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the Government's target for analogue switch-over is between 2006 and 2010. Does the Minister agree that to succeed in achieving that switch-over at the beginning as opposed to the end of the period will net the Government some £800 million? Does he also agree that it is appropriate to do something positive to bring forward the take-up of digital receiving equipment by those who are least well off in society?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the noble Lord asked that question earlier and I cannot improve on my answer. Strictly speaking, the Government did not announce a period between 2006 and 2010; we announced the criterion on which the decision on analogue switch-over would be taken. We said that the criterion would be that 99.4 per cent of those who now have access to analogue television would have access 984 to digital television at the time of switch-over. It is likely that that will be between 2006 and 2010 and it is certainly desirable from all points of view, not least those to which the noble Lord referred, that it should be as early as possible.