| UK Council on Deafness | |
| [home] [search this site] [about us] [members] [news] [press area] [events] [publications] [campaigning] [consultations] [deaf awareness week] [grants] [affiliation] [contact] |
In this Report
Commons Written Answers (30 Jun 2003)
Early-day Motion 1389
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on early-day motion 1389.
Maria Eagle: All parts of Great Britain will benefit from the initiatives to be funded from the additional £1 million we have made available to support the statement on British Sign Language (BSL). In selecting organisations to be represented on the BSL working group, we have identified key organisations of and for Deaf people with remits across Great Britain. They will ensure that initiatives reflect needs across GB including Scottish interests.
Lords Hansard (1 Jul 2003)
Communications Bill - Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has given, we have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 149, which would give Ofcom the duty to draw up a code on provisions for the deaf and visually impaired at least once every three years rather than from time to time.
Although I am reluctant to place an unnecessary burden on Ofcom, the reality is that, with the rapid pace of change in technology, a report must be produced regularly to ensure that it is up to date and includes the latest developments and opportunities for disabled people in the communications industry. Perhaps the Minister would find a period of time other than three years a little more palatable, but we believe that the terminology "from time to time" somewhat reeks of deadlines being pushed further and further back.
Amendment No. 155 recognises that able-bodied people are often not the best judges of what benefits disabled people. We on these Benches support this amendment. It seems a sensible addition to the Bill in that it recognises that disabled people themselves are the best judges of what would and would not be of benefit.
Government Amendment No. 156F would empower the Secretary of State to alter either the percentage target or the date by which a target should be reached if it seemed that the original target would be met in advance of the deadline. The intention behind this amendment is sound. Some channels will find it easier than others to meet targets. Where rapid progress can be made, the Secretary of State should raise the bar for such channels. However, the amendment concerns us in that it provides an incentive for channels to do the minimum possible to meet the targets so that they do not give the Secretary of State a reason for revising their target upwards. Therefore, can the Minister assure us on this matter? I question what reasons the Government have for believing that this amendment will not act as a disincentive for channels to meet their targets.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise merely to congratulate the Government
on what they have done thus far. It is clearly a move in the right direction,
although, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, some
clauses still cause considerable concern - not least, Clauses 149 and 150. While
we all appreciate that there has been some movement on the part of the Government,
I hope that the Minister will realise how strong the feeling is in this direction
and that he will be able to do rather more by Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond
to non-government amendments and to points made in the debate. Amendment No.
149 would require Ofcom to review and revise its code relating to provision
for the deaf and visually impaired,
"at least once every three years", rather than "from time to time".
That would be the case regardless of whether it was thought that any review or revision was necessary. We fully expect Ofcom to review and revise its code regularly, but we believe that decisions on the frequency of the reviews should be left to Ofcom, which has the expertise and experience to judge when they might be necessary. The situation might be very different in five or 10 years' time from the current one. We may need to have such reviews far more frequently in the near future and far less frequently later, or, as technology develops, the other way round. Frankly, I do not believe that Amendment No. 149 would lead to a different end result.
Amendment No. 150 would require Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with a dual sensory impairment, as well as persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and blind or partially sighted. We do not underestimate the problems faced by people with a dual sensory impairment. We certainly recognise that they have particular needs. But we do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is necessary.
Realistically, a person would need to have some form of hearing or visual ability in order to enjoy or understand television. In this case, the current duty to promote understanding and enjoyment for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted would seem to satisfy that need.
There is specialist equipment such as the talking teletext service, which is particularly useful for people with dual sensory impairment. The ITC's technology group believes that it is possible to design a digital version of the talking teletext equipment - I referred to that in debating an earlier amendment - and suggests that the equipment manufacturers work with broadcasters and set-top box manufacturers to try to find a commercial solution. I think that that is the right way to proceed and more likely to bring about the desired result than bringing forward an amendment to the Bill.
I remind the House that government Amendment No. 22, which we moved last week, introduced a duty on Ofcom that focuses on widening the availability of consumer equipment which is convenient for use by the widest practical range of users, including disabled people. That was in response to Amendment No. 39 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in Committee. Ofcom will be required to take those steps, and enter into such arrangements as will encourage others to secure that wide availability. It would not be appropriate for Ofcom to become involved in design, much less manufacture and marketing; so the focus is correct.
Amendment No. 152 is consequential to Amendment No. 151, which will be discussed in the following group.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that he will not move Amendment No. 150B, so I can move on from that, except to say that we still think that a 10-year period in which to satisfy those obligations is right. It gives those services with new obligations, such as digital, cable and satellite services, enough time to plan for the introduction of these new requirements. That is important, because there are substantial costs involved. Ten years is a long time, that is why we have agreed a fixed, five-year interim target, which is the purpose of government Amendment No. 150A. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is not satisfied with that response. However, I know that it is also recognised around the House that that is a significant improvement.
Amendment No. 153 would require all channels to achieve at least 40 per cent of their 10-year targets for subtitling, signing and audio description by the first anniversary of the relevant date; and at least 90 per cent of their 10-year targets by the fifth anniversary of the relevant date.
Government Amendment No. 150A goes a considerable way towards meeting this amendment. After consideration, we thought that a fixed, five-year interim target should only apply to subtitling, which is a well-established technology. We concluded that a five-year target of 60 per cent struck the right balance between the objective of accelerating the provision of subtitling and the need to avoid imposing new burdens on broadcasters in an unreasonable time-scale. I know that some people would wish for higher than 60 per cent. I know that some people would wish it to include signing and audio description, which are less well developed than subtitling. But I hope that they will accept that we have listened to the concerns and acted on them.
On Amendment No. 154, Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired must set out the descriptions of programmes that should be excluded from the subtitling, signing and audio description obligations. The amendment would mean that Ofcom would have to consider the number of viewers per programme when considering which programmes should be excluded from these obligations.
In excluding programmes, or in special cases all programmes in a service, Ofcom must have regard to a number of factors set out in subsection (6)(a) to (f) of Clause 298. Those include the size of the intended audience for the programme. I am not clear how Amendment No. 154 would add to those requirements.
Amendment No. 155 aims to ensure that Ofcom would have to have regard to the extent of the benefit as perceived by the disabled person in setting out the descriptions of programmes which should be excluded programmes, rather than just the extent of the benefit for disabled people as now.
Amendment No. 156 would require Ofcom to have regard in the same context to the views of organisations representing persons who are hearing or visually impaired. Both amendments seem to be aimed at ensuring that Ofcom consults disabled people and their representatives on individual exclusions and that they decide which programmes it is appropriate to exclude from the perspective of the disabled person. Ofcom is already required to consult these people on its code relating to provision. That code will set out the overall policy on programme exclusions. So the RNID, the RNIB and others with an interest are already consulted on the policy regarding exclusions.
Commons Hansard (1 Jul 2003)
Digital Hearing Aids
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): What the take-up of NHS digital hearing aids is.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): By the end of May 2003, 98,540 digital hearing aids had been fitted to 62,865 people as part of the modernising hearing aid services project. We have recently announced that an additional £94 million will be made available over this and the next financial year to support national roll-out of a modernised hearing aid service providing digital hearing aids.
Ms Walley : I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post and wish her well in it. I also welcome what the Government are doing on digital hearing aids, but I must tell her that it is not happening quickly enough in North Staffordshire. Does she agree that there is an unsung hero in North Staffordshire - my constituent, Mr. Longstaff - who will not be satisfied until everyone who needs a digital hearing aid can get one? He does not want people to have to wait until 2005. Could the Minister contact the Treasury and ask whether it could free up the £10 million or so in balances that existed under the old health authority? If we could free up that money and get it moving over to the new primary care trusts more quickly, we could roll out the digital hearing aid programme that much more quickly for constituents in North Staffordshire.
Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments and welcome, and I understand the point that her constituent makes. The programme that we have set in train on digital hearing aids has been widely welcomed. I understand that the North Stoke primary care trust is commissioning this work on behalf of the other four PCTs in the area, working with the local service provider - the University Hospital of North Staffordshire - and the project team. Funding is being examined and they are trying to establish how best to provide those services as quickly as possible. In fact, we look to PCTs to provide only about 25 per cent. of the funding; in a typical area, that will amount to about £6,000 per PCT. In view of the increase in PCT funding, we believe that they should try to match the 75 per cent. provided centrally to help introduce the service.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): I too congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and I am sure that she will add sparkle to the Front-Bench team and do very well. She will be aware that digital hearing aids can help people to stay in work and revolutionise people's lives. Is she aware of the disappointment in west Norfolk that the Queen Elizabeth hospital was not part of either the first or the second pilot scheme? Can she give us any idea of when my constituents will be able to get these worthwhile and important aids?
Ms Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Digital hearing aids will be in place by March 2005. It has been done in waves, with different trusts signing up to the programme at different times, but it obviously takes time because various things have to take place. The proper equipment must be installed and audiologists must be trained. We need to ensure that, once the service goes out, it is able to deal with people's individual needs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will accept that we are moving as quickly as we can. No one would be happier than we if it could be done more quickly, but real practical problems must be addressed. Nevertheless, the service should be rolled out nationally by April 2005.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position and I also welcome the fact that, as a result of the Government's investment in the health service on an unprecedented scale, this technology has been made available. However, is she aware of age-based discrimination in certain areas where older people who have old-style analogue hearing aids are not receiving the new digital aids? Will she make it clear that the Government will not tolerate that sort of discrimination in any NHS trust, and that the service should be freely available at the point of use so that older people can have access to digital aids?
Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I completely agree that there should be no discrimination. The approach taken has been that people who require new hearing aids or are obtaining them for the first time have been prioritised for digital hearing aids. Provision is then worked through so that people who have had hearing aids longest get the new ones, and that may be people who have had them four years, then three years, then two. We are renewing the oldest analogue hearing aids by replacing them with digital hearing aids. That may be why my hon. Friend's constituent believes there is discrimination, but that is not the case. We are simply working through the system to deal first with those who have had hearing aids longest before we move on to others.
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells): I add my welcome to the Minister, but while she has a fresh pair of eyes, will she look again at the facts behind her brief? Her words will sound hollow to people like my constituent Tony Warner, who is 83 and who had to wait 23 months to have a digital hearing aid fitted because of the lack of audiological technicians in the area. Does she realise that it is no good making digital hearing aids available if there is no one available to fit them? The hearing aids must be fitted by technically qualified people, but the number of audiological technicians qualifying last year was half the number in the previous year. The gap between supply and demand is widening, and the waiting lists will lengthen, not shorten.
Ms Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I understand his constituent's frustration at any delay. As I have said, we are moving as quickly as we can to institute proper training and to put equipment in different areas. The hon. Gentleman has certainly drawn attention to a real problem in the training of audiologists. We have instituted new training programmes in recognition of the fact that there is a difficulty, and we are working with other sectors to see whether more can be done to train people. There is a difficulty, but we are working hard to redress it. I hope that that will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): Does my hon. Friend accept that many people who are partially deaf, as I am, have stopped using the analogue hearing aids issued by the national health service because they pick up too much noise that we do not want to hear, meaning that we cannot hear what we do want to hear? We want the new generation of digital hearing aids to be introduced as soon as possible because they make a great difference to what people hear.
Ms Winterton: Yes, I am well aware of the differences between analogue and digital, although it might be quite handy in this place to hear some things and not others. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. It is absolutely true that the new digital hearing aids allow much greater personalised tuning to serve the problem of the person concerned. Through computerisation, people are better able to adjust the hearing aids to deal with particular problems. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to have systems in place as soon as possible, and I assure him that that is what we are working to do.
Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup): I too welcome the Minister to her post. She has had a remarkable first outing. By the way, the jacket that I am wearing is not a hospital jacket, so she need not worry too much about that.
May I press the Minister on the timing of the roll-out programme? Will Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, which has its service provided by Lewisham, be dealt with at an early stage of that programme? The hospital feels that it is getting postcode treatment and facilities at the moment, and I hope that it will be dealt with early rather than at the tail end in 2005.
Ms Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments; I assure him
that he has no need to apologise for his white coat.
I understand that there will be concerns about the roll-out in different areas,
but as I said, we have worked closely with primary care trusts in different
areas to ensure that the programme can be properly met by 2005. We are encouraging
other areas to come forward; we shall then work closely with them to ensure
that they have the proper training and equipment so that, once the service is
up and running, they can deal with people quickly and ensure that they have
the benefits of digital hearing aids.
Commons Written Answers (1 Jul 2003)
Hearing Difficulties (Courthouses)
Lady Hermon: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the provisions for those with hearing difficulties in courthouses in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Leslie: The Northern Ireland Court Service is complying with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In support of this, the Court Service commissioned an independent Survey Report of the court estate and has developed a programme of work that includes the provision of induction loop systems throughout the court estate. Currently, induction loop systems have been installed in the principal courtrooms at 13 locations with similar facilities scheduled for installation at the seven remaining court venues by 1 October 2003. All new court buildings are fitted with induction loop systems as standard. The Northern Ireland Court Service also arranges for the provision of interpreters for deaf and hearing impaired litigants and witnesses in all court proceedings.
Lords Hansard (1 Jul 2003)
Communications Bill - Lord Ashley of Stoke
Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 264, line 42, leave out "from time to time" and insert "at least once every three years"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is no exaggeration to say that this group - Amendments Nos. 149 to 159A - will determine not only the future amount of television that can be enjoyed by disabled people with sensory impairment but the quality of their enjoyment. General technological advances have been made, and the potential for the future is immense, as we are all well aware. The adjustments that must be made for disabled people are very tiny by comparison. There is no doubt that companies could make them if they so chose. It is Parliament's responsibility to see that they do so.
Tonight I shall focus on four areas. First, I shall refer to Ofcom reviewing the code - Amendment No. 149. Secondly, I shall speak about the inclusion of deaf-blind people. Thirdly, I shall speak to Amendment No. 153 on the time scale for reaching targets. Fourthly, I shall talk about the power of Ofcom to exclude programmes from having to meet the requirements. I shall also comment briefly on the government amendments.
Amendment No. 149 will require Ofcom to review the code relating to the provisions for deaf and visually impaired people at least once every three years instead of "from time to time". We discussed the issue in Committee, and those who supported me agreed that the phrase is far too vague and far too loose. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, rejected our views in Committee, arguing that we should trust Ofcom. She said that she would expect Ofcom to review and revise the code regularly, and that to require more would impose an unnecessary burden.
I disagree for three reasons. First, I am sure that those about to lead Ofcom - the noble Lord, Lord Currie, in particular - will take their responsibilities seriously. However, their successors may not do so. Secondly, Ofcom will be an extraordinarily busy regulator, and it may be inadequately funded for that task. Without a legal requirement to review the code, it will be pushed aside to make way for any other business legally required. The sheer volume of Ofcom's work could be decisive. Thirdly and significantly, placing a statutory requirement on the timing of a review signals Parliament's view that the code is a matter of importance.
It is not a question of trusting Ofcom, as intimated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It is a matter of Parliament telling Ofcom that the code really matters to disabled people and must be kept updated because of the dynamism of the industry and the rising expectations of disabled people.
I turn to Amendment No. 150. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised the special problems of those who are deafblind, but she was content to leave the Bill as it was without any amendment referring to them. However, it is essential to recognise that without such reference in the Bill Ofcom will not have the authority to meet the special needs of those with a dual handicap. Provision for those who are deaf and provision for those who are blind are simply not enough because that assumes that those who are hearing impaired can see well and that those who are visually impaired can hear well. Clearly, that is not the case. There is a wide spectrum of impairment ranging across both disabilities and allowance has to be made for that.
It would be especially unfortunate to reject this amendment because it is quite easily possible to make simple changes that would be of great benefit to deafblind people. For example, increasing the size of lettering or changing the font can make all the difference for those who are deaf but have little sight. We do not know what benefits will emerge for the future, but for now we must ensure that Ofcom has the power to consider them. We hope that the Government will accept this amendment. Frankly, I think that it would be outrageous for the Bill to leave this House without a reference to deafblind people.
I turn to my Amendments Nos. 150B and 153. It really is ridiculous to allow television companies 10 years to reach the subtitling target set out in the Bill. For a dynamic industry 10 years must seem like a joke. In Committee my views received welcome support, even from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, accepted the thrust of the argument and said that challenging interim five-year targets would be set. As usual, my noble friend Lord McIntosh has kept faith and tabled new clauses which go some way towards relieving the deep anxieties of many disabled people. We are pleased that all sides of the House understandably expressed concerned at the incredible 10-year provision in the Bill.
I shall therefore not be moving my Amendments Nos. 150B and 153. However, I am very sorry that my noble friend's timescale does nothing about targets for signing and audio-description. I think that it is wrong to fail to do so. I hope that when he replies he will be able to make some provision on signing and audio-description, both of which are terribly important.
The new clauses will ensure that there a number of developments which are very important to disabled people. Ofcom would have the responsibility to see that every television channel promotes the service they offer to disabled people. That is really splendid news on this important issue.
The figures for subtitles, signing and audio-description will now be averaged over 12 months rather than on a weekly basis. I appreciate that companies want some flexibility. However, to move from a weekly to an annual basis is far too big a jump. It is just not acceptable. I think that a monthly basis would be a reasonable compromise. It is not clear how that will affect disabled people, but I expect it to be less of an issue on subtitling than on signing and audio-description. Disabled people and Members on both sides of the House will appreciate any clarification from my noble friend on those two points - signing and audio-description.
The Bill's five-year interim target for subtitles is set at 60 per cent. Although that is less than my amendment provides for, it is a compromise and is none the worse for that, especially because of the important addendums that the target may be increased, the date may be brought forward by order of the Secretary of State, and Ofcom will have explicit power to set further interim targets after the 10-year anniversary. The significance of that is that subtitles may be extended beyond 80 per cent, moving us closer to the dream of 100 per cent subtitles, where all deaf people can watch all television in comfort and with comprehension. That would be one of the best, if not the best record, in the whole world.
I shall mention a final provision of the new clauses. Where the Secretary of State chooses to alter any of the 10-year targets by order, he can do so only by replacing them with a higher target. Again, that is good news. I express my appreciation to the Government and to my noble friend Lord McIntosh in particular for the constructive way in which they have tackled these problems.
In brief, the Bill clearly has good intentions that will give deaf and visually impaired people much greater access to television. It could and should enable them to share in the welcome expansion of programmes of all kinds. However, so much depends on its future implementation. In particular, the exemption of programmes should be minimal, or it could be massive. On that hinges the value of the Bill to people with hearing and visual disabilities. Ofcom will decide which programmes will be excluded and that is right and proper. The issues that it should consider in making its decision are a matter for Parliament and not for Ofcom. The current wording is so loose that it could lead to either minimal or massive exemptions. The issue should be debated in this House so that Ofcom can know our views and then get on with its job.
My own view and that of some Members of this House, as it is of the RNID and other organisations concerned with these problems, is that exemptions should be absolutely minimal and should be granted only for exceptional and pressing reasons. It would be very helpful if Ofcom were to give advance notice of applications and an opportunity for voluntary organisations to comment before any exemptions are made.
If my noble friend Lord McIntosh were to give an assurance that Ofcom would be expected to operate in an open and consultative manner on exemptions, as does the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, it would be tremendously important for deaf people and a very healthy development.
I have tabled Amendment No. 155 because in any discussion on disability, I have found that one striking fact emerges; that is, the effects of practically any disability are perceived very differently by the public from those experiencing the disability. That has very important implications for the Bill because Ofcom can assess the benefits of subtitling, signing and audio description in one way, but disabled people see them entirely differently. The public could regard subtitles, for example, with mild interest or possibly irritation, whereas to a deaf person they are crucial to watching and comprehending television. Without them, in a real sense, television is useless and irrelevant to profoundly deaf people because they cannot understand the dialogue - imagine that. Basically, that is the reason for my amendment, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept it.
Amendment No. 156 also relates to the need to have more than an official view before making a decision on exclusion or inclusion. Organisations for the disabled can effectively reflect the views of disabled people, and they need to have the right to do so. Consultation and transparency lead to a very different animal from protestations - which is all we have now - and the amendment would provide for them.
I know that my noble friend the Minister will do what he can, and I thank him very sincerely for the great advances that we are making for deaf and sight impaired people in the Bill. I greatly appreciate all that he has done. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to get into the habit of speaking twice on every group of amendments but it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the many government amendments in this group and then respond to the debate at the end as briefly as possible.
We have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we fully recognise the importance of access to television services for people with sensory impairments. The provisions in this Bill and other recent developments will lead to a very significant improvement on the current position. In July 2001 we increased the subtitling target for digital terrestrial broadcasters from 50 per cent to 80 per cent. In the Bill, we have extended this requirement, and requirements to provide signing and audio description. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is not satisfied with what we are doing in that regard but we have made changes. That requirement will apply to all licensed broadcasters including, for the first time, digital cable and satellite broadcasters. Those changes should lead to a dramatic increase in the provision of services to help people with sensory impairments to enjoy television. We know that many people would like us to do more. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, knows that whenever I offer him something, he wants more. I pay tribute to him for that; he is a doughty fighter and he is very difficult to resist. We indicated in Committee that we would bring forward amendments at Report to deal with two of the concerns that had been expressed. The government amendments in this group represent the outcome of that commitment and also make a further concession to address Amendment No. 157.
The first part of Amendment No. 150A deals with the concerns expressed that many sensorily impaired people are unaware of the existence of subtitling, signing and audio description, and are therefore unable to benefit. The amendment will place Ofcom under a duty to include in its code on access to television for people with sensory impairments a requirement that broadcasters make adequate information about those services available to those who are likely to want to make use of them.
The second part of Amendment No. 150A fulfils our commitment to introduce a fixed, five-year interim target for subtitling, to ensure that progress towards meeting the main target by the 10th anniversary is accelerated in the early years. That target will apply to all services for which the relevant date is after the passing of the Bill; that is, all television licensable content services and restricted television services, and those digital television programme services and licensed public service channels the provision of which begins after the passing of the Bill. There is certainly an incentive here to get the Bill passed.
The target will be 60 per cent. In determining that percentage, we have taken into account both the desire of people with hearing impairments to ensure more subtitling provision, and the understandable concerns of broadcasters about the additional costs that this will impose on them. We believe that a target of 60 per cent strikes the right balance. It is a tough but achievable figure for the broadcasters and will lead to the availability of much more subtitling than might have been expected on a linear progression to 80 per cent.
Amendment No. 156F allows the Secretary of State to set a higher target, or require the target to be met by a different anniversary, where it appears that the 60 per cent target is likely to be fulfilled before the fifth anniversary. That will ensure that there is flexibility to require more from those services for which the 60 per cent target would be less challenging. I hasten to add that that is an upward motion, not a downward one.
Finally, Amendment No. 156H deals with another point of concern which we did not specifically undertake to consider in Committee. That amendment will ensure that the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description is not cut back, by changing the existing order-making power in Clause 301(1)(b) to ensure that the percentage figure for the 10-year targets for all those services can only be increased in future, not decreased. As I said, we introduced the amendment specifically to address the intention underlying Amendment No. 157, which we may be debating very shortly.
I hope that the House will agree with me that these amendments show that the Government take these issues very seriously, that we have listened to the concerns expressed and that we are prepared to act where appropriate. We believe that we have gone as far as we can and that it would not be right to impose any further burdens on broadcasters in this area. I have not gone into the detail of all the other amendments but it is obvious that they are consequential on the major points to which I referred.
Commons Hansard (1 Jul 2003) Special Needs (Waltham Forest)
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (extract):
I was talking recently to someone from Hawkswood school, who pointed out that teachers will often walk to the whiteboard - or blackboard, whatever they are using - and talk to the class while writing on the board. If a hearing impaired child is a lip reader, which is not always the case, once they break sight from the teacher, they have no idea what is going on in the class. How many times does a teacher go to the back of a class and explain over the heads of the children what they are looking at on the board at the front? Those are two very simple realities that most mainstream teachers would take for granted, but which they would not be able to do if their classes included hearing impaired children, because teachers must never break sight from a hearing impaired child. Such simple issues have been forgotten in this process. A huge amount of retraining of teachers would be required.
Lords Hansard (8 Jul 2003)
Communications Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 146, line 12, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 217 [Licensing of the public teletext service]:
Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 195, line 8, at end insert -
"(4A) The licence must contain the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that persons with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both are able, so far as practicable, to make use of the service for all the same purposes as persons without such disabilities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I first saw the group of amendments, I was a little worried by the fact that there were 83 clauses between Amendments Nos. 26 and 49. However, they probably hang together with regard to subject matter.
Amendment No. 26 deals with the teletext service. There has been an interesting debate on the matter. Analogue teletext meant that people who had access to Braille typewriters were able to use teletext and thus get information. It was of great benefit to them. It meant that the blind and the deafblind who could use Braille had a way of getting information.
We have tried many things to get the Government to move on the matter. We started off ambitiously in Committee, but I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment. The aim is to mirror what was done on the electronic programme guide, on which the Government were able to move towards us. If it is possible to do something because of an advance in technology, we should take the argument on board. That is a reasonable approach. As the technology comes on line, we should be allowed to use it. I hope that the Government will respond favourably.
Clause 300, to which Amendment No. 49 relates, covers the issue of people with a dual sensory impairment. The Government have undergone something of a learning process in respect of those with a dual sensory impairment - the deafblind. The department has undergone something of a learning process. One wonders why other Ministers did not bring forward that matter for us. It does not matter, as long as we get there in the end.
The deafblind - those with dual sensory impairment - are a specific group with specific problems. However, they are not even one consistent group. There are those who are born deafblind and those who are initially blind or deaf and then lose the other sense. Those secondary groups can, as their senses deteriorate, get access to services made available by current technology. It is possible to give assistance to a subset within a subset of a specific condition. All that this amendment does is suggest that the Government, or those in power, must bear in mind those considerations. I hope that the Government are able to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 50 is probably the most controversial of all the amendments. I believe that I previously described audio description as the cock-up school of history, in which broadcasters could be told to audio describe X number of programmes only to discover that no one can receive the audio description. The most recent information that I have is that 49 - or has it gone up to 50? - people can receive several thousand hours of audio-described programmes. That is an absurdity, but there is a solution, because for those on Sky - I hope my noble friend will forgive me for saying something fairly nice about -
Lord McNally: My Lords, a wonderful company!
Lord Addington: My Lords, Australian-American broadcasting conglomerates allow one to receive a firm kind of audio description, although it is not as good. I believe that there are two different kinds - broadcaster mixed and receiver mixed. I understand that the receiver mixed system, which the free-to-air people have been working on, is renowned for its superiority. It is better; it has many bonuses; it can be used individually; one does not need to have broadcasts to the entire room. Everything about it is better. But if you cannot receive it, it does not matter very much whether it is better. Therefore, if we push forward here, we can simply say that those free-to-air broadcasters must allow their audio description programmes to be broadcast by Sky to those who have Sky; namely, 24 per cent of the target population, or about 480,000, according to the figures that I have been given. That surely makes sense.
A number of arguments have been advanced and a number of letters written about this matter. I believe that at the back of those is the fact that trying to get a producer for the chip to go into the new box may well be discouraged. I have come to the conclusion that that is at the back of the resistance. Therefore, if one manages to scare off someone from the potential market by saying that this should go through Sky, one may well continue the process. I believe that that is one of the greatest points of resistance by the free-to-air broadcasters. I suggest that the Government should consider forcing those free-to-air broadcasters to make this service available to what is under a quarter of their potential market, when they are already pumping vast amounts of money into the audio description itself. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate and I shall not make a speech now. However, I want to indicate that I shall advise the House to accept Amendments Nos. 26 and 49.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly gatecrash the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to deal with a small problem that I have. Due to a miscommunication between me and the Public Bill Office, Amendment No. 50, which relates to backstop powers on training, failed to make it from Report stage to Third Reading. As it was not a contentious issue when I left it at Report stage, and as it has some bearing on the utilisation of new technology, I hope that the Minister will kindly help me further with regard to that particular issue.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said and welcome what the Minister is about to say. I am very pleased that the deafblind - a most excluded group of people - will at last get something. However, I am saddened that the Minister does not propose to accept Amendment No. 50. I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said. We are in an absurd situation. It would be ridiculous to be unable to get what is available and hope for better prospects later.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, express my pleasure at hearing that Amendments Nos. 26 and 49 have been accepted and also to add my concern that Amendment No. 50 has not. Over a number of sittings in Committee and at Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made the problems clear to us all, and we have also been very well briefed by the RNIB and others. With about half a million people being disadvantaged in this way and 22 per cent of people over 60 having both a hearing and visual problem, it is quite absurd - I believe that that is the right word - that we are not moving faster, especially as the facilities are in place and as this amendment would ensure that suitable provision was made for such people. I therefore support all these amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to say briefly that we welcome the Minister's forthcoming response to these amendments. Our only concern, which I hope the Minister will allay, has been to ensure that the legislation is not technology specific. I believe that that would be a great mistake. It is important for Ofcom to be given the flexibility to drive forward these proposals and to respond to technology.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the House will agree that we have listened not only today but throughout to the views expressed and have shown ourselves willing to make changes. At Report stage we introduced a new duty for Ofcom to encourage the availability of easily-useable apparatus; we acted on the need for broadcasters to make available adequate information about subtitling, signing and audio-description services to those likely to want to use them; we introduced the 60 per cent, five-year interim target for subtitling; we addressed the concern that electronic programme guides should be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. I am grateful to all those who have pressed us to make those changes.
Amendment No. 26 would require Ofcom to include in the public teletext licence conditions to ensure that people with sight or hearing disabilities are able to use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. Teletext provides a valuable service, but it is licensed as a text service. We do not want to change the name of the service. We agree that we would like it to be available to people with disabilities, in so far as that is reasonably practicable. We will therefore accept the amendment. There are some technical difficulties to be addressed with regard to the drafting and the placement of the amendment in the Bill. However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that what comes back from the Commons will preserve the effect of his amendment.
Amendment No. 49 would require Ofcom's code relating to provisions for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people with a dual sensory impairment, as well as people who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted. We understand the very particular needs that are involved. As we have said, realistically, a person will need to have some degree of sight or hearing to be able to benefit from television; and, as such, they would be covered by the provisions. I regret that the substantive effect of the amendment is not entirely clear. However, we understand the strength of feeling. The amendment has a great deal of support, and we shall accept it on that basis. Again we may need to make some minor changes to the amendment, but they will not affect the spirit of it.
Amendment No. 50 is more difficult. We have already discussed the provision of audio-description services. I am well aware of their importance for visually impaired people. We all agree that there should be more audio-described programmes. The amendment would require broadcasters to provide their audio-description services in a form intelligible by their users. That is so obvious that there should be no need to write it into the statute, and the amendment does not appear to add much to the Bill. But it could be counterproductive. It is not clear why we would need such an amendment for audio-description services but not for sub-titling or signing. We certainly would not want to imply that there is no corresponding need for subtitling or signing to reach users in an intelligible form. That is the danger of this amendment. However, we understand that particular problems surround the provision of audio description that do not arise for subtitling and signing.
There are currently two ways of transmitting audio description - either mixed with the programme sound as an alternative to the normal soundtrack or in a separate stream that is mixed with the soundtrack in the viewer's set-top box. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
The purpose of the amendment is to get broadcasters to provide their services using a specific system compatible with Sky set-top boxes instead of another one developed by the BBC and other partners which can only be received on 45 prototypes. That would allow Sky viewers to receive the programmes audio-described by the broadcasters which have to provide audio description. We fully understand the desire to make the best use of currently available technology to accelerate the provision of audio-description.
That would not solve the problem of the non-Sky viewers. I agree with noble Lords who said that we must not be equipment specific. There is not enough bandwidth available on the digital terrestrial platform to operate a system similar to the one used on satellite television. The drafting of the amendment presumes that the solution lies in the hands of the broadcasters. In fact, one only has to look at the example of current developments in EPGs to see that future models may depend as much on manufacturers of equipment as on the broadcasters themselves. So we think that this is a matter better left to the codes, since that will mean the regulator can take into account the latest developments and direct the broadcasters accordingly. In future, there might be other options or equipment that might have more benefits and less disadvantages. But my point is that we should not be picking winners now - a point which I think was taken up in debate.
Perhaps I may now address the gatecrasher. Yes, we understand the point that he makes about training. I can just about relate it to this group of amendments. The Government would like to make it clear that the obligations placed in the Bill represent a serious and ongoing obligation to invest in training. We see these requirements as vital to the future success of the sector. Unless we invest in people and their skills our vibrant audio-visual media will eventually go the way of shipbuilding and any other traditional manufacturing industries. On the recommendation of the ITC's programme supply review, the Secretary of State asked Skillset to set up a task force to report back to Ofcom on training. We keenly await the recommendations of the task force and expect a robust and vigorous strategy for the industry to emerge as a result.
Broadcasting is just one part of the audio-visual industry. Skillset and the UK Film Council are currently working with the film industry to develop a comprehensive film skills strategy to be launched in September. We look forward to the DTI and Skillset working together with the new media to address skills strategies to drive productivity and competitiveness of the sector. It is particularly fitting to be addressing these issues on the eve of the launch of the Government's national skills strategy, which places particular emphasis on the need for industries to work collaboratively to advance the implementation of skills strategies within their sectors. The Government will continue to monitor this broad range of training and development activities closely, particularly compliance with measures.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting my first two amendments - a brace is a good haul for one day. Amendment No. 50 is designed to deal with an ongoing problem as it currently exists. I heard what the noble Lord said and I have decided not to seek the opinion of the House, although it crossed my mind more than once. I offer the Minister one thought on this matter: I promise never to come back to this subject provided boxes are produced with the relevant technology within, say, eight months from now. If not, I shall come back and badger the Government to merry hell to do something about it. There is no point in ensuring that something beneficial is produced which cannot be received.
Commons Hansard (14 Jul 2003)
Communications Bill
Lords amendment: No. 11
Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18, Lords amendment No. 42, and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 72 and consequential amendments (a) to (e), and Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 93, 119 to 126 and 206.
Tessa Jowell: The amendments, although not directly related, have been grouped together because they deal with a wide range of disability, equal opportunity and training issues. They include placing a new duty on Ofcom to promote equipment that is convenient for use by the widest practical range of users, including people with disabilities. Ofcom will also be required to establish and maintain a committee to advise on the interests of disabled people and of elderly people across its remit.
The reference to the "fair treatment" of disabled people has been replaced with a reference to "equalisation of opportunities", which is the preferred term in recent disability legislation. Lords amendment No. 42 was introduced to require Ofcom to include conditions in the public Teletext licence to ensure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities can use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. Though we agree with the spirit of the amendment, we had to address some technical difficulties with the drafting and the placement of the amendment. So we drafted a new amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 42, which will be inserted in the correct place.
Lords amendment No. 72 requires Ofcom's code on provisions for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people with a dual sensory impairment. Amendments (a) to (e) are minor consequential amendments. They provide that consultation on the code, and accessibility to it, applies to people who have a dual sensory impairment.
Ofcom will have a duty to include in its code on access to television for people with sensory impairments, a requirement that broadcasters make adequate information about the assistance that is available to those who are likely to want to make use of it. In addition, a fixed five-year interim target of 60 per cent. for subtitling has been introduced to ensure that progress towards meeting the main target by the 10th anniversary is accelerated in the early years, with the Secretary of State able to set, by order, a more challenging target where appropriate.
Amendments have been tabled to close a loophole that related to the provision for thresholds in clause 330, below which the requirements for equal opportunities and training would not apply.
Mr. Whittingdale: We spent considerable time in this House and the other place ensuring that the Bill properly caters for the needs of those with hearing or sight disabilities. The Opposition pressed that on a number of different occasions and it is gratifying to find, once again, that one of the things of which we were keen to persuade the Government has been taken up in a Lords amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked in Committee for a new clause to give a duty to promote inclusive design. That has resurfaced in a similar form to encourage the wide availability of accessible, easy-to-use equipment. The issue is important. The disability groups feel strongly that the measure is necessary. I am all in favour of giving Ofcom the duty to encourage equipment to be as accessible as possible to people who are deaf or visually impaired and, equally, to ensure that their needs are properly taken into account by the establishment of the panel.
I have a couple of slight concerns. There is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that the broadcasters pay due heed to the needs of people with disabilities while not loading them with too great a burden. There is a requirement that all cable and satellite channels subtitle 80 per cent. of their programmes within 10 years of the legislation coming into force. That target was agreed in discussions with the industry and the disability groups. All the broadcasters have signed up to it.
The Government have gone further, however, by imposing a new interim target of 60 per cent. subtitling for all programming after five years. That front loads the demand on the broadcaster to move towards greater subtitling so that they have to achieve more than 50 per cent. of the target within five years rather than 10. The full target of 80 per cent. subtitling could cost nearly £900,000 per channel annually. I am not going to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the target is demanding and will have considerable cost implications. For many broadcasters, £900,000 is an easily affordable sum, but small struggling niche channels will find it hard to meet that cost.
I am also concerned that amendment No. 88 provides that if a channel has voluntarily fulfilled its 60 per cent. interim subtitling requirement before the five-year deadline, the interim requirement can be increased by the Secretary of State. That would give those who have acted in a thoroughly commendable fashion by reaching their target early an even more demanding target to meet on top. That could act as a disincentive to channels to reach the target of 60 per cent. before the five years have expired. Apart from those points, however, I do not disagree with the amendments.
John Robertson: I want the Secretary of State to assure me that the needs of disabled persons working in the telecommunications industry will be addressed. The Bill mentions broadcasters, but does not mention telecommunications. I raised that in Committee. When Lord Gordon tried to amend the Bill, he said:
"If the object of this Bill is to bring together telecommunications and broadcasting, it seems a little lopsided, to say the least, that the training provision applies solely to broadcasting." - [Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2003; Vol. 650, c. 396.]
I ask the Secretary of State to consider that.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is right: we are front loading the cost of subtitling. I hope that I have made clear our reasons for that. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place have certainly made the reasons clear. The cost of subtitling is decreasing all the time. That is why we have acted as we have. It is also worth noting that Ofcom has the power to exempt services, taking into account the cost if that is properly justified.
In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), the Government are constrained by legislation. I remind him that last week we published the White Paper on skills, the focus of which is to ensure not only that our industries maximise productivity through a trained and skilled work force, but that we draw from the widest range of people across the community in developing access to skills and training. I attended an event earlier today at which Barbara Cassani, the chair of the London Olympic bid committee, forcefully made the point that diversity in recruiting for the Olympics is important because in that way we recruit the best. The same applies to telecoms and broadcasters in recruiting from the range of talent, which obviously also includes people with disabilities.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.
It being half-past Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 38 agreed to.
Lords Hansard (16 Jul 2003)
Communications Bill
LORDS AMENDMENT NO
42 Clause 216, page 192, line 16, at end insert - "(4A) The licence must contain the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that persons with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both are able, so far as practicable, to make use of the service for all the same purposes as persons without such disabilities."
The Commons disagree to this amendment, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof -
42APage 268, line 10, at end insert the following Clause - "Assistance for the visually impaired with the public teletext service
The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing, so far as it is reasonable and practicable, by the inclusion of features in that service, to do so, that persons with disabilities affecting their sight are able to make use of the service."
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E.
At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 42, which would have required Ofcom to include conditions in the public teletext service to secure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities were able to use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. I explained that there were some technical issues to be addressed with regard to the drafting and the placement of the amendment in the Bill, and Amendment No. 42A does that in a way which we believe preserves the spirit of Amendment No. 42.
At Third Reading, we accepted Amendment No. 72, which requires Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance as to the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with a dual sensory impairment. I indicated at the time that we would need to make some minor amendments to ensure that the remainder of the provisions on the code were consistent with the change. Amendments Nos. 72A to 72E are therefore minor consequential amendments to make provision for consultation on the code and accessibility of the code to apply to people who have a dual sensory impairment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A in lieu thereof. - (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Addington: My Lords, I agree that the form of wording in Amendment No. 42A is clearer and more direct. I thank the noble Lord for making sure that, as regards Amendment No. 72, we have a way of ensuring that dual sensory impairment is brought in throughout the whole structure. I thank the Government.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, positively my last word on the Bill is of heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The long-standing problems have now been dealt with in a very efficient and effective way. It will transform the lives of deaf, blind and deafblind people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Other (17 Jul 2003) Oral evidence (extract)
Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday 15 July 2003
Q131 Miss Kirkbride: I wanted to turn to the issue of subtitling and audio description. We have received representations from the RNIB which is very disappointed by the service you offer. If you look at the figures, the progress that a) you have made and that b) you intend to make seems very limited. After all, we are talking about people who are the most marginalised who have the most need to have television and who yet are still not in a position to receive your services. The figures are given on page 125 of what you have done and we do not seem to have made very much progress year on year and you are only intending to get to 10 per cent by 2008. Why? You are a public service broadcaster and you take money off these people for having a television and they cannot watch or hear you because of their disabilities, and yet that is the progress you are proposing to enable them to do so. Explain.
Mr Dyke: We have certain people who represent particular areas and I will ask Mark Byford because he is responsible for the whole area of disability.
Mr Byford: Firstly, on subtitling we are clear we have got a commitment, as we show in the Annual Report, that by 2008/09 we will be 100 per cent, and we are on course for that. You can see there has been an increase and a meeting of targets set. On audio description you can see there as well that there have been increasing targets and it is 10 per cent, so 100 per cent for subtitling and it is much less for audio description but we have been working with manufacturers to try and develop this. We have issues and challenges concerning the technology there. Our commitment to making our services more available to people with disabilities is absolutely clear on this and subtitling I re-emphasis is 100 per cent by 2008, and we are on course. On video description we are making progress in making it available to all audiences.
Q132 Miss Kirkbride: But I understand that Sky has a very good system which is very much welcomed by people with problems with their sight and the BBC is refusing to get involved. You could have half a million more disadvantaged people to watch your services with greater enjoyment yet you are not going to do it; why is that?
Mr Byford: What I know myself is our commitment to improve is shown there.
Q133 Miss Kirkbride: It is minimalistic if you talk about figures. It is not great, is it?
Mr Byford: On video description we are on course to get to 10 per cent by 2008 and through our own research and development we are doing work with the industry to make the audio description developments improve.
Q134 Miss Kirkbride: But the system exists, Sky has a system and you are refusing to get involved in a system that would serve half a million more disabled licence payers. You are still only proposing to add 10 per cent of your programmes to be done in six years' time.
Mr Byford: On the specifics you give us with Sky we will take that away and reply specifically. I do not know the full answer on that.
Q135 Miss Kirkbride: Does Mr Smith know more about it as he is whispering to you.
Mr Smith: I apologise. From memory, the target committed to on audio description is one laid down by ITC for audio broadcasters as a whole.
Mr Byford: And we are ahead on subtitling.
Mr Dyke: I think it is better if we come back to you and check the actual technical information. My understanding is that there are stillreal technical problems. If you say there is another system ---
Q136 Miss Kirkbride: Maybe your equipment is only being piloted but there is already a system in operation on satellite used by Sky which you could have become involved in and you did not do so.
Mr Dyke: I did not know that but we are very happy to look at that.
Q137 Miss Kirkbride: What are the figures on producing subtitling?
Mr Smith: We are spending £11 million a year on subtitling at the moment and audio description is more than that.
Q138 Miss Kirkbride: Right, and you are spending £70 million a year on the Internet where it is only a very small proportion of viewers and one could argue that those people can afford to pay for the service, compared to the derisory amount of money for subtitling and audio description, given your overall budget. You offer figures of getting to your 100 per cent target or ten per cent target in six years' time. How can you justify the difference in spend there?
Mr Dyke: On subtitling we have had a plan.
Q139 Miss Kirkbride: It is still six years before it is 100 per cent. That is a long time in people's lives when they are blind or deaf and they are marginalised anyway, yet you are spending £72 million this year on the Internet services. You have told us what the costs are and they are a fraction of the costs you are providing to the Internet and you are not doing it today.
Mr Dyke: You could say the same about drama, entertainment or anything else.
Q140 Miss Kirkbride: That benefits everybody because it is available to everybody because it is on.
Mr Dyke: On audio description we have technical problems, and we will look
at those. On subtitling we are ahead of everybody else.
Q141 Miss Kirkbride: You are the public sector broadcaster ---
Mr Dyke: I agree.
Q142 Miss Kirkbride: --- You take money off them in a compulsory fashion. The money that you are talking about seems to me very small and yet there you are spending £72 million.
Mr Dyke: It is about how fast you can gear up the service.
Mr Byford: Also it is a commitment of 100 per cent across all services.
Q143 Miss Kirkbride: If you just did it for BBC1 and BBC2 you would make a lot of people very happy. After all, we have already established that very few people watch digital services. Maybe the 30,000 who watch digital services will miss out but those watching BBC1 and BBC2 will be dead chuffed.
Mr Dyke: On audio description let us look at the technical difficulties of making it work.
Q144 Miss Kirkbride: But in subtitling there is no difficulty. As an organisation that takes money off people compulsorily for having a television set and offering services in six years' time at a cost not much in comparison to the £3 billion of your budget - and I draw your attention to the £72 million you are spending on the Internet - how can you justify that to me and my deaf constituents?
Mr Dyke: Can we justify it?
Q145 Miss Kirkbride: Yes, the six-year wait with subtitles?
Mr Dyke: We obviously discuss this with the representatives of the deaf. I have had two meetings with them since I have been Director-General. We meet quite regularly.
Mr Byford: We have a clear commitment that by 2008 all services, not just BBC1 and BBC2, will be on course for that. For BBC1 and BBC2 it is 76 per cent ---
Q146 Miss Kirkbride: Is it 70 per cent already?
Mr Byford: 76 per cent for BBC1 and 76 per cent for BBC2.
Mr Davies: We take your point, we obviously have a particular responsibility to deliver to blind people and deaf people a service that they will find meets their needs.
Q147 Miss Kirkbride: So you make them wait six years for it?
Mr Davies: I think that is unfair. I think that we are making substantial amounts of progress. In a perfect world we would have done it all yesterday, but we are moving in the right direction.
[back to Deafness in Parliament]
| [home] [search this site] [about us] [members] [news] [press area] [events] [publications] [campaigning] [consultations] [deaf awareness week] [grants] [affiliation] [contact] |
UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448
Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy
Statement
© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.
|
|
 |
 |