Local Government and Communities Committee, 20 Feb 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Official Report 116KB pdf

---

Digital Television Switchover

Under agenda item 4, the committee is asked to agree an approach to its work on the impact on communities of the switchover to digital television. We have an approach paper and we need to consider and agree the recommendations.

I genuinely do not recall agreeing anything in relation to the digital switchover that would create this amount of work. It was interesting to read the papers, but I am not convinced that the issue should be a priority for the committee at this stage. We agreed on a range of issues relating to housing and fuel poverty. Increasingly, we ought to be examining the way in which single outcome agreements have been developed, how they will be monitored and how national standards, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has committed himself to, will be ensured.

I would be concerned about how work on the digital switchover would fit into our timetable, which seems to be quite pressured, particularly on the local government side. We are advised that the single outcome agreements will be ready at the beginning of April. Given what those single outcome agreements have to do and the responsibility that they have, we must consider our timetable over the coming period. Where would consideration of the digital switchover fit in? How much time would it take? Given the other issues that we must examine, is it a priority for us?

I do not know whether we would necessarily call the matter a priority or spend a lot of time on it, but I remember that we agreed to consider it. It is important for a number of people.

Constituents have complained to me about the fact that they have been unable to obtain digital broadcasts—they have the digital equipment, but cannot access digital services. The issue has been raised in the House of Commons by my local Labour Westminster MP. The BBC and other providers have been unable to give me a clear indication of when towns and islands on the periphery will be able to access services. Paragraph 6 of the approach paper sets out a timetable for switchover, but that is not necessarily when individual communities will be able to access digital.

We would want to take some evidence on the issue. The paper shows that there are some issues—for example, many elderly people are concerned about the loss of analogue television. We might want to try to reassure ourselves, so that we can reassure our constituents. Johann Lamont is right about the committee's overall priorities, but I do not see that we cannot find time to fit in a session on the issue.

I take on board Johann Lamont's concerns. The recommendation calls for a "short inquiry". Perhaps we could have one evidence session and after that the committee could judge whether enough concerns exist to justify developing our inquiry further. It would be remiss of us not to clear some time to consider the issue and to establish whether the committee has further concerns. We could have a tight and narrow initial evidence session and decide after that whether we want to expand our inquiry.

We are all aware that, given the dominant role of television in society—particularly among some of the groups identified in the paper—our mailbags will be bulging if the changeover goes wrong.

We currently have plenty on our plate, so I would like us to look at where consideration of the matter would fit into our timetable; I have no objection to us having a look at it. It would be preferable to do so before the roll-out starts in the Borders in late September. If we could squeeze in a session at the end of May or beginning of June, that might be reasonable. I would not necessarily want to stick it on the agenda for next week or a meeting in a fortnight.

I do not know whether that is a solution.

Kenny Gibson's comment was interesting. I would have thought that the focus of our inquiry would be not the people who are demanding digital and cannot get it, but the people who have no option but digital and cannot get it. That is where our focus needs to be, rather than on those of us who are smart enough to go out and buy what we need and go ahead and get digital. The issue is not a huge priority for us now but, other business permitting, I would be happy to have an inquiry later in the year, perhaps after the summer recess—either that or, if Kenny Gibson and David McLetchie have a particular interest in the issue, they might like to act as reporters and come back to the committee with some more information before we do anything more.

I am happy to do that, convener.

I will let Alasdair Allan in, as he has not yet spoken.

I agree that digital switchover is not an enormous portion of our remit. David McLetchie's suggestion that we hold a session on the issue in June makes sense. It would make sense for us to examine the matter before the switchover takes place in the Borders. I agree that it should not take up an enormous portion of our agenda.

I share Johann Lamont's reservations to a degree, but on the other hand the issue is of greater importance in some parts of the country than it is in others and to some sections of the community than it is to others. We should not lose track of the issue. We should hold a session, providing that a slot can be found, or—as Patricia Ferguson suggested—remit the issue for certain members to report on. That approach has been taken by this committee and other committees before. There are big priorities and the committee will have to spend a lot of time on the issues that Johann Lamont mentioned.

Many sensible suggestions have been made. A 90-minute session before summer would be right. I am happy to be a reporter on the issue. I represent island communities, as does Alasdair Allan. Indeed, Skelmorlie, which is just south of the convener's constituency, has a particular problem. The issue is twofold: it is about people who are worried about the switchover; but it is also about people who have bought the equipment and cannot use it.

I notice that the paper says that 98.5 per cent of people will get coverage when the switchover takes place. That means that 75,000 people will not, and they will no longer have analogue television. The committee should address the issue, albeit that it should not be at the forefront of our deliberations in the foreseeable future.

We agreed previously that we would examine digital TV, and I do not think that there is any feeling round the table that we want to go back on that.

Johann Lamont raised the issue of our timetable—perhaps we need to consider it jointly. I regularly examine the timetable with the clerks and consider what is scheduled and when we will bring issues forward. There is an issue about continuity, with single outcome agreements following on from the budget process. I would have thought that that would be of importance to the committee.

We can agree the recommendation to undertake a short inquiry—as Bob Doris says, we emphasise that it will be short. We will call for evidence, but we can hold it back until we consider the timetable and agree when we will consider the issue. David McLetchie suggested that we should have a session on it before the Borders roll-out. If we can do that, I hope that that would be agreeable.

If we are going to look at the timetable again, as Johann Lamont has suggested—it would be logical to do so in respect of the single outcome agreements—members should e-mail the clerks if there is anything else that they feel we should consider. It is perhaps time for the committee to consider the timetable again, in a private session at the next meeting or whenever it can be scheduled. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes item 4 on our agenda. We now move to item 5, which we agreed to take in private.

Meeting continued in private until 12:29.