Television Licence and Digital Reception
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3415, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the television licence and digital reception. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that there are still many areas in Scotland, including parts of Perthshire, where digital television reception is not possible; notes with concern the desire by the BBC to increase the television licence fee by 2.3% above inflation, and believes that, until such time as the BBC's entire broadcast output is available to all licence payers, a differential should be introduced into the licence fee to ensure that people who are not receiving a full service do not pay the same licence fee as those who do.
First, I acknowledge that broadcasting is a reserved matter. However, both the BBC and Digital UK Ltd are widely seeking views and it is our duty to make our views clear and to represent our constituents in the process.
I thank the members who have signed my motion and the members who are staying for the debate. I know that Help the Aged has welcomed the debate and I am glad of the support. Members will have received its briefing, which outlines concerns about the consequences that the switch-over might have for the vulnerable elderly.
The points that the organisation raises are important and need to be addressed. Access to television is hugely important to many people. It is a source of information and entertainment to the elderly, the low paid and the disabled. Many of the Scottish Executive's campaigns are promulgated through television. Before the switch-over goes ahead, the Government must ensure that no one is left behind by the digital revolution.
The root of the debate is probably the single biggest development in broadcasting since the introduction of colour pictures. Of course, several issues are connected with such an important development; my motion focuses on only one. As everybody here is no doubt aware, there are two methods of broadcasting television signals—analogue and digital. The two systems are broadcasting simultaneously, but as long as the analogue signal is maintained, the digital signal cannot be broadcast in full and at full power throughout the country. Until the analogue system, which has served us since the 1930s, is switched off, we cannot have 100 per cent digital coverage.
I should declare an interest in the subject of my debate, as I am one of the many people who cannot access digital TV at present, so I am looking forward to the switch-over.
I am no luddite. I fully recognise the improvements that digital TV can bring to coverage and reception quality and I can certainly see the possibilities that digital TV offers for a far wider variety of programming—all the promises about more localised community television, a dedicated Gaelic channel and all the rest of it.
Already, people who are lucky enough to live in the right place can pick up a set-top box for 30 quid in the supermarket, plug it into their telly and—hey presto—access a host of channels, with new ones seeming to be advertised almost every week. It is an affordable one-off payment and there you go. However, people must be lucky enough to live in the right place. As I said, I—like many others in Perthshire and throughout Scotland—cannot receive digital TV through my aerial. Buying a set-top box will not fix that for me. To do that I would have to get cable or satellite TV. Those options are much costlier and far more disruptive to install.
Like all channels, the BBC is investing heavily in digital TV. I am aware of eight channels that it has: apart from BBC 1 and BBC 2, there are BBC 3, BBC 4, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament. I am told of those channels but, of course, as I have no access, I cannot be certain. The commercial channels also seem to be in almost permanent launch mode. I learn from my friends in set-top-box land that Channel 4 has recently quadrupled its presence on Freeview with More4, E4 and E4+1.
So why am I picking on the poor old BBC? The licence fee, that is why. Without digital, we can see only BBC 1 and BBC 2, but we are paying for all eight channels—as well as those that will come in future, including BBC jam, an educational service that will apparently be launched early in 2006. Not only do we all pay the same licence fee regardless of whether we can use a set-top box or not, but the BBC has made no secret of the fact that it is seeking to increase the licence fee by more than inflation to pay for all those services.
As part of the charter review process, the BBC has been explicitly making the case for the television licence fee to be increased by 2.3 per cent above inflation each year from 2007 to 2014, to help it to fund the digital programming and digital infrastructure that the Government wants it to provide. My constituents, and many others in a similar position, are being taken for a ride by the BBC. That is why I want the introduction of no see, no fee—a discounted licence payable by those who cannot cheaply and easily access the public service broadcasting that is paid for through their licence fee.
Such a set-up would surely be temporary. Switch-over is planned to start in the Border Television region in 2008, with the Grampian Television and Scottish Television regions changing over in 2010. It would be a temporary set-up, but a fair one. As things stand, the BBC wants one in four of us to continue to pay hand over fist for services that we cannot access. Until the whole of the BBC's output is easily accessible to all, that situation must not continue. We are being charged by the BBC for services that it cannot provide. That is not right, but it can be put right simply. This is no wild idea; it is possible and there is precedent. I know that I cannot receive digital because I checked on the internet. I put my postcode in and got the disappointing news out. The same software could easily be used when renewal notices are sent out for TV licences.
I am in the same position as Roseanna Cunningham; I live in Dumfries and Galloway in an area where we cannot receive digital. Despite that, we will be the first to be transferred to digital. Does she agree that it is vital that analogue is not switched off before digital is available to everyone? However good a thing the switch-over may be, the danger is that parts of rural Scotland are being used as guinea pigs.
I agree. I am not a technical expert but, as I understand it, the problem is that it is impossible to roll out digital until analogue is switched off.
As I was saying, the suggestion of a differentiated licence fee is nothing new. Such a fee exists and has existed for many years. I was reminded of that by one of my older colleagues, Alasdair Morgan. If a person owns a colour TV, they pay £126.50 a year; if they own a black-and-white TV, they pay only £42. That choice is, to an extent, the person's own, but whether they can receive digital is a matter of geographical chance. What a difference in culture has come about over 40 years. Forty years ago, the BBC did not dream of charging for something that people did not receive; now, it has no intention of allowing fairness and justice to apply. That is why I say no see, no fee.
I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on raising this important matter. The period during which the whole television industry will change from analogue to digital reception is 2008 to 2012. Originally, the switch-over was to be finished by 2010, with 95 per cent of consumers having digital equipment in their homes before the analogue switch-off. That was the published target of Chris Smith when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 1999 and it has been repeated by the current secretary of state, Tessa Jowell. However, Office of Communications findings cast severe doubts over whether that level of take-up is achievable. Why has the secretary of state promised completion to 95 per cent of consumers at the new later date of 2012 when, according to Ofcom, and as Roseanna Cunningham has just said, it will not be possible for technical reasons to extend digital terrestrial television to more than 75 per cent of households before the switch-over?
There is no doubt that digital should improve most people's television reception and should probably improve coverage, but there appear to be severe losers. Something must be done about that. Many people will need expensive aerial upgrades. Many want Freeview but do not want to purchase pay TV services. What about people in Orkney and Shetland? What about people in the Western Isles? What about people in the Highlands from John O'Groats to Campbeltown? Why should many in those areas be left bereft of TV and faced with the single option of installing Sky? Some will simply find that too expensive and will, as a result, have no television at all.
Yesterday, I met some constituents from Ardfern on the Craignish peninsula in Argyll, one of whom explained to me that the peninsula receives the signal from Mull. He bought a digital box for a one-off £20 payment and now receives a good digital Freeview reception of all the terrestrial channels. Delighted with that, he purchased a similar digibox for his 93-year-old mother, who lived nearby on the other side of the glen. As she, too, received the analogue signal from Mull, he was rather surprised to find that, when he connected the digibox to his mother's system, it did not work.
Of course, that was because she received her signal through a repeater system, which acts as a reflector and turns the picture upside down. Because that process works all right with the analogue signal, but not with digital, people who live on the west side of the Craignish peninsula can get terrestrial digital television whereas people on the east side cannot. On the west side, people can simply buy a Freeview box for £20, but the only option for people on the east side is to install Sky at a minimum of £180 a year with the additional initial cost of installing a satellite dish. On top of that, they will have to pay the TV licence fee—which, incidentally has increased by 32 per cent since Labour came into power.
As a result, the Government must ensure that it has an answer for people who find themselves in this predicament. Will the minister tell me here and now what will happen to people who receive their analogue signal from repeater stations?
Tessa Jowell has conceded that many people who have yet to switch over to digital are
"exactly the people that the State has a duty to protect".
Although that statement is a bit patronising, I am sure that the many people I know who are in this position will be delighted to know that the secretary of state has their welfare at heart. I just hope that she keeps her promises and I ask our minister to encourage her to do so.
Obviously, the issue is reserved, but it is of the utmost importance that people all over the UK have decent television reception and do not have to pay grossly inflated costs for that. I have always thought of myself as a one-nation Conservative, and particularly so on this matter of life after analogue.
Although broadband has taken ages to be rolled out, some areas in the Highlands and Islands still do not receive it. Ironically, analogue is being switched off first in the rural areas and it is vital that those who are affected receive adequate service from our broadcasting corporation.
I see that we have managed to clear the public galleries, or perhaps people have something better to watch on television.
As Jamie McGrigor has pointed out, it would be bad enough if the unfairnesses that Roseanna Cunningham highlighted with regard to the change to digital were simply a matter of the cost of BBC licences. However, that is the thin end of the wedge. Very considerable costs could be involved. One problem is that no one can be certain about what the costs for any particular house will be. Indeed, I suspect that costs in rural areas where the reception is already poor will be significantly higher than costs in urban areas. For a start, the cost of getting a tradesman to come out and carry out work is likely to be higher in a more remote area.
In any case, people in many rural areas that have bad reception will be likely to have to pay another £125 for a new aerial and then buy a set-top box—or, rather, a set-top box for each set, at which point the costs begin to mount up. They will have to replace their video cassette recorder if they use it—as I suspect most people do—to record something on a channel that they are not watching. They might also need to buy a new scart lead at £25 and a radio frequency modulator for an older TV set. Very quickly, the costs become significant and begin to cause problems.
As a result, people have every right to feel a bit angry when the BBC puts up the licence fee for a service that they might not be able to get but for which they are paying through the nose. As my very slightly younger colleague Roseanna Cunningham said, the technology exists that will let us know who can get which service. Ofcom has a website on which people can enter their postcode and see whether they can get digital television. The TV licence people claim that they know where we all are and how many television sets we have in each house. Why can they not match all that information and simply charge people the fee that is appropriate to the service that they can get? It seems to me that technology—particularly digital technology—should make that possible.
Many people in rural areas feel that they are badly done by the current system, let alone by any extension to a new system. They may get no reception at all from terrestrial stations—there are places in Dumfries and Galloway where that is the case; they may get very poor reception; they may have to have recourse to a local cable system for which they pay an extra fee; or they may get reception only from some station in another country. For example, in the west of Wigtonshire, some people can only get Northern Ireland channels. In Crocketford, I can get BBC 2 only from the north of England unless I turn my aerial to face the other direction, which makes every other channel's reception much poorer.
Digital TV and access to the huge number of programmes that Roseanna Cunningham listed are not necessarily a huge prize. The quality of programming leaves a lot to be desired and there are endless repeats. We can watch some series endlessly. At least there is the advantage of knowing that if we miss a programme, we could probably see it on five other channels the following night.
As always, the way in which this particular change is being delivered has been driven by the needs and desires of the urban majority and not much attention has been paid to the rural minority.
I am ever so slightly older than Alasdair Morgan and therefore slightly older than Roseanna Cunningham. I remember black-and-white televisions—I see that the Presiding Officer is nodding—that had screens that were 9 inches square while the back was the size of a house. In any event, that is not particularly relevant to the debate.
Of course, the Borders is the first test bed for the switching off of analogue and moving into digital. Many of the issues that members have raised about difficulties with reception in certain geographical patches were evident at a recent meeting in Galashiels with Gary Robertson of BBC morning radio fame. It turned out that many people in the audience could not get channel five, which meant that the set-top box would be of no use to them.
I had a set-top box at one stage. They are not that easy to use; they cannot just be plugged in and set off. We can plug it in to find that nothing happens because it is very sensitive. I found that I had to get an engineer in to sort my set-top box and—this was the crucial issue—he said, "Hen, it's your aerial." He went up on to the roof and changed the aerial round.
Alasdair Morgan mentioned the cost. Ofcom has said that the estimate for the required aerial upgrade might be as much as £190. If that is added to the cost of the set-top box, we are talking about £225 for starters. Someone who is not well off is not going to have that money, but the equipment will be mandatory in the area in which they live. It is a large sum of money to pensioners and those on low incomes, particularly with other punitive increases, for example to the TV licence, fuel costs, and the council tax. Also, there is not the option of not having digital.
I know that there has been some mention of what will happen for vulnerable people. Ofcom estimates that there are 440,000 vulnerable households in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government ministers have not made clear what will be done to support such people so that they can afford those set-top boxes and aerials, and whether there will be a cap on any money.
Another practical issue was raised at the meeting that I attended in Galashiels. The boxes are very sensitive and sometimes everything disappears off the screen. What we are supposed to do—I learned this word in the Parliament—is reboot by switching everything off and on again and letting it all come back on. Many older and vulnerable people will not know that. I am sure that they will then get on the phone to the TV engineer and he will come out. All he will have to do is reboot, but it will cost people money. Those are real issues because we are talking about people who might be using their televisions more than the rest of us do.
There is also the possibility of cowboy operators moving in. When there is a whole area to be done, they could come along and say, "I'll just have a wee look on your roof," and then come down saying, "Tut, tut, this aerial's not good enough and not only that but the cabling will have to be changed." That may or may not be the case, but people who are told that may believe that it is something that they have to do.
There are issues to do with practical delivery, reception and the fact that changes are mandatory, particularly in areas that seem to have been picked for an extraordinary reason such as their size, such as the Scottish Borders, which is not really the best reception area in which to switch off the analogue signal.
It is interesting that we are debating with ourselves and not with the Executive, with the honourable exception of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.
I would like to dispel the idea that has been put forward by at least one of my colleagues that difficulty in getting digital reception is just a rural problem. It is not just a rural problem. In the city that I represent, Aberdeen, there are significant parts of Dyce and Bucksburn where one cannot get digital reception. One cannot get a lot of reception on terrestrial channels either, but one certainly cannot get digital. Indeed, in this fair city there are significant areas where one cannot get the complete range of services.
If one switches on a digital box and searches for the number of channels currently available, one finds that it is about 90; one has to subscribe to a number of those channels through a top-up arrangement. It appears as if we have lots more choice, but the reality is that we have considerably less choice. I suspect that many of us are enjoying indulging in some BBC-bashing tonight, especially as the BBC is trying to squeeze more money out of folk who are not getting the services. A number of those channels are UKTV channels, for which people have to pay an additional fee. Almost all those programmes are recycled programmes that we have all already paid for through the licence fee. I can forgive ITV for recycling programmes on ITV3 and ITV4, which show some of the best of its old drama programmes, because it is not trying to make an additional charge for them. However, UKTV Gold, UKTV Style and the whole range of UKTV channels are just the BBC in disguise, trying to squeeze more money out of individual members of the public.
Not only has the BBC launched new channels that are free to air for television, but it has launched a number of radio channels, many of which will not be of any great interest to people in this neck of the woods, but they have to be paid for out of the licence fee because there are no charges.
The situation is not unique to rural areas; it is widespread in Scotland. There are considerable concerns, not just about the analogue signal being switched off in the near future in the south of Scotland, and towards the end of the decade in the north of Scotland, but about problems on the analogue signal that cannot be corrected because the Department of Trade and Industry has said, "We're not having any more technical solutions because we're moving to digital." As a result of that, some of my constituents have been significantly disadvantaged. A technical solution is available, but people are being deprived of that and forced to subscribe to Sky and other services that they do not need to be paying for.
I commend tonight's motion to the chamber.
We have not had much technical stuff tonight, so I shall fill that vacancy. I point particularly to a decision that was made three years ago by the Independent Television Commission, which allows two different standards. There are six multiplexes or channels that cover many different TV stations. Three use one standard—64 quadratic amplitude modulation—and the other three use 16 quadratic amplitude modulation. Does that matter? Actually it does, because the 64QAM is a much less effective carrier of signals to the receiver, particularly for people who are relatively distant from the transmitter.
The website that has been referred to suggests that to receive BBC 1 and BBC 2 at my home address, I should turn my aerial to the south and point it at the transmitter at Durris, which is approximately 40 miles away. If I want to watch Grampian, I have no options. If I want to get BBC 4, I must turn my aerial to the north, towards the Rumster forest transmitter, which is 65 miles away. The reality is that I get some of the multiplexes, but not others. The 64QAM multiplexes, in particular, are very difficult to get.
We must realise that, at present, there are 1,160 analogue transmitters in the United Kingdom. When the crossover to digital is complete, it is planned that there will be 80 digital transmitters. That represents a huge reduction in the number of aerials—
Does the member know how many transmitters there are in Scotland?
Alas, I do not, but I am confident that, pro rata, the reduction will be even greater because of our terrain.
Some of the options that are referred to from time to time, such as satellite, are not available to everyone. On the Moray firth, for example, there are a number of communities that live to the north of a cliff, which means that they are unable to see the satellite, which is at an angle of approximately 46( to the horizon. In other communities, planning restrictions mean that residents are not permitted to put up satellite dishes. There are some quite serious problems out there.
Other members have spoken about the cost to people of updating their aerials. It is estimated that, across the UK, that will cost £400 million, so we can perhaps infer that the cost to Scots will be £35 million. Through Ofcom, the Government has said that 35,000 to 40,000 households, most of which will be in remote rural areas such as the Scottish islands, will fall outside the coverage.
Another point that is worth making is that with digital the signal strength is greatly reduced. My Rumster forest analogue signal is transmitted at 500kW, whereas the digital signal is transmitted at a mere 8kW. That is good in that it saves electricity, but it is not so good in that it makes it much more difficult for me to receive the signal.
The figure of 95 per cent coverage for Freeview sounds okay, but according to Ofcom,
"the 95 per cent Freeview coverage would resemble a ‘swiss cheese', reducing faith in the service, and switchover generally".
One way or another, there are both technical and societal issues to deal with. Digital reception is a social inclusion issue for the Parliament. There is a big difference between switch-over and switch-off. Just because analogue will be switched off, that does not mean that we will be able to switch over. Curiously, the south-east of England faces the biggest problems because of interference from the continent. People who live there will be the last to switch, so the changeover might be another poll tax on air—we will go first and suffer.
As other members have done, I begin by congratulating Roseanna Cunningham on securing the debate on behalf of her constituents in Perthshire. Ms Cunningham was correct to say that broadcasting is reserved to Westminster, but I am keenly aware of the importance of broadcasting to cultural, economic and democratic life in Scotland. Television is important to the people of Scotland and is for many their main source of information and entertainment.
Although broadcasting is a reserved matter, we have been proactive in engaging with United Kingdom Government ministers on broadcasting issues that are relevant to Scotland, including digital reception and digital switch-over. We engage regularly with them and with broadcasters to discuss potential improvements to the service that is provided to the Scottish public.
Just two weeks ago, I attended the European culture council, at which digital switch-over was one of the main items that were discussed. Countries all across Europe are planning for digital television: they are examining the benefits and opportunities that it presents and considering how they will make the switch. Countries such as Germany and Italy have already begun that process and are enjoying its benefits. The UK Government has decided that switching from the current analogue television system to digital terrestrial television is the best way to ensure that most people in the UK will have access to free digital TV services and get better reception.
I appreciate the frustration of viewers in Scotland who cannot receive the BBC's digital services on Freeview. As Roseanna Cunningham rightly asserted, those viewers still pay for those services through the licence fee.
I forgot to say that Grampian Television and Scottish Television are broadcast on the less effective technology. It would be ironic if the channels that are particularly Scottish turned out to be those that are most difficult for people in Scotland to receive. Is that one of the issues that the minister will consider?
It certainly is, if that is a possibility, although I am not convinced that Mr Stevenson's understanding of the technology holds up on this occasion.
The extension of digital terrestrial television will allow households to receive the Freeview services that they cannot receive at present. Although I support the objective of bringing the benefits of digital television to all viewers in the UK, I have made clear to the UK Government the importance that the Scottish Executive attaches to social inclusion. As Stewart Stevenson rightly said, social inclusion is a matter of interest to the Scottish Parliament.
We have also made it clear that, when digital switch-over is complete in Scotland, digital terrestrial television services should be made available to as great a number of people as possible without any unnecessary financial burden. I am delighted that the United Kingdom Government has agreed with us on the matter. The coverage plan for switch-over means that households in the UK that are able to receive analogue services at present will be able to receive digital terrestrial television—Freeview—after switch-over. The UK Government has also announced proposals for an assistance scheme to ensure that the most vulnerable households are also able to benefit from digital TV. The point is one that Christine Grahame referred to in her contribution.
That help will be available to households in which one person is aged 75 or over, or is in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance. The assistance will be available free of charge to households in which the person who is entitled to the assistance also receives pension credit, income support or jobseekers allowance. In addition, special provision will be made to help blind viewers to receive audio description services.
In responding further to Christine Grahame's point, I will also say that Digital UK Ltd, which has been entrusted with the job of making switch-over happen, will introduce a digital log for properly certified aerial installers. I hope that that response helps to allay some of Christine Grahame's fears.
I am sorry, but I will have to press on. I am happy to discuss the matter with the member later.
As we have heard, about 25 per cent of households across the UK cannot receive Freeview at the moment and one in five households across the UK still cannot get channel five through their aerial. Brian Adam was absolutely correct on the matter. In the part of Glasgow in which I lived until some months ago, I could not receive channel five. On moving to a new house, I thought that my problems would be over, only to find that I had to invest in a fairly expensive new aerial and a digibox in order to get a decent picture; although that said, the picture is still not great despite my being in a relatively central part of Glasgow. Never mind.
The issues that are involved in the digitisation of broadcasting are complex. As Roseanna Cunningham rightly said, for technical reasons it is not possible to extend Freeview digital services until the switch to digital clears space for an increase in transmission power. I, too, have been assured that that is the case. That is not because of a lack of transmitters, but because digital services can, for reasons of interference, be transmitted only at relatively low power levels while the analogue signal is still being broadcast. It is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in coverage in each region until switch-over. I say to Alasdair Morgan that the power of the digital signal at that point means that the impact on outdoor aerials is likely to be minimal.
Digital switch-over will begin in Scotland in 2008 in the Borders, as we have discussed. It will be completed in the UK by 2012, but Scotland will be digital by the end of 2010. That means that viewers in Scotland will be enjoying full digital services before other parts of the UK. I want to respond to Chris Ballance on the point that he made, although he is not in the chamber, so I will respond to the point if not to Chris himself. I confirm that the analogue signal will not be switched off until six months after the switch-over date. That back-up will be put in place.
As well as increasing access to digital services, switch-over will greatly increase consumer choice and allow more services to be made available to the public. Digital television also has the potential to serve the specific needs of older people and of people with disabilities by providing access services such as improved subtitling, audio-description, talking electronic programme guides and signing.
Roseanna Cunningham has proposed that until such time as the BBC's entire broadcast output is available to all licence payers, a differential should be introduced into the licence fee. I understand the motivation behind that proposal, but the main aim of the UK Government's push to digital switch-over is to solve the problem of access to digital television.
It is worth noting that that is a UK-wide problem—it is not just viewers in Scotland who are sometimes plagued by poor reception and cannot get digital TV—so I would have thought that the Government is unlikely to be open to arguments that Scotland deserves special treatment. However, there is considerable merit in giving special consideration to people who do not currently receive digital services and who will not receive them after switch-over. I have made that point. We will continue to work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom to ensure that the impact of switch-over in remote communities in Scotland is fully considered.
Discussions about the licence fee are progressing in the normal way, through detailed and careful negotiations, to ensure that the BBC has the right level of funding to fulfil its public service obligations.
In November, Digital UK began its public information campaign on digital switch-over. Two weeks ago, its representatives were in Edinburgh to meet relevant Scottish Executive officials and other interested organisations to discuss switch-over—what it means, how it will happen and what we need to do to prepare for it. I will continue to work with the UK Government and Digital UK to ensure that they are aware of particular Scottish concerns about digital switch-over, and I will ask my officials to ensure that the relevant officials in the DCMS are aware of the issues that have been raised in today's debate.
Meeting closed at 17:46.