HC Deb 01 July 1996 vol 280 cc570-87

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

  1. (a) amend subsection (1B) of section 20 by substituting for any percentage specified there a percentage specified in the order, and
  2. (b) require the Commission to include in the code maintained under that section the requirement that in each week, at least a percentage specified in the order of so much of any digital programme service or qualifying service as consists of programmes which are not

excluded programmes for the purposes of that section in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language is to be so presented or translated.

  1. (2) In subsection (1) "qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.
  2. (3) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.
  3. (4) No order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 33—Compliance with code about provision for deaf and visually impaired.

Government amendments Nos. 165 to 171.

Mrs. Bottomley

As the House will be aware, the Commons Committee voted to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on signing, subtitling and audio-description. The effect of those amendments was to introduce a requirement on multiplex providers to ensure that, by 10 years from the commencement of digital terrestrial television, 95 per cent. of all programme hours should be subtitled, 10 per cent. should be presented in sign language and 50 per cent. should be accompanied by audio-description for blind and partially sighted people.

The Government fully appreciate the importance of television to people with sensory disabilities, as a source of information, education and entertainment and as a vital link to the outside world. I share my hon. Friend's concern that we should do everything possible to make television more accessible, and congratulate him on the splendid way in which he has conducted a very effective campaign to achieve his ends—although it was somewhat bruising at times.

This is a matter on which we have a good record. The proportion of programmes subtitled on analogue terrestrial television has risen steadily in line with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, for which I commend my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). That proportion continues to rise, and will be replicated on digital terrestrial television as part of the existing broadcasters' simulcasts. This is a point on which there has been some misunderstanding, so let me be unequivocally clear. The subtitling requirements on the existing terrestrial broadcasters will apply to their digital simulcasts, and will continue after analogue switch-off.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed us on these issues in order to secure further concessions. As he will know, my noble Friend Lord Inglewood explained the position admirably in another place, as did my hon. Friend the Minister of State—to whom I shall pay tribute on many occasions, both on Report and on Third Reading—in Committee. While we remain genuinely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's cause, we believe that the existing provision in the Bill would severely, and perhaps fatally, damage digital terrestrial television's prospects, with a consequent loss of services for all viewers. That concern has been shared by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and the ITC.

The television companies and the ITC made three essential points. First, the target quotas are set at an impracticably high level. A requirement to subtitle 95 per cent. of programming would be virtually unworkable. Some programmes—for example, some live studio debates—are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to subtitle at the moment.

4.30 pm

For sign language interpretation, the technology which would enable viewers with a home personal computer to trigger an animated signer from subtitles is not yet available. Without it, sign interpretation requires a significant amount of digital capacity, thus reducing the amount available for programmes. Research into the possibilities for audio-description is at an early stage. The limitations of the technology and its application are largely unexplored.

The second point of concern is that the current provisions do not take account of the nature of the programmes to be broadcast. In the digital era, many channels will be themed, showing a narrow range of programmes appealing to specific audiences or special interest groups. For some of these—for example, movie channels—subtitling will not pose any great technical difficulties, but other channels will have real problems.

Placing a 95 per cent. subtitling requirement on a live sport or live studio discussion channel is unrealistic at the present time, and would effectively disbar such programmes from appearing on digital terrestrial television, which would mean a loss of services for all viewers.

Thirdly, the cost of implementing the targets constitutes a serious threat to the competitiveness of digital terrestrial broadcasting, and so a significant disincentive to investment.

Mr. Miller

Will the Secretary of State explain how she arrives at the costs that she estimates? Has she based her assessment on the current technology used for providing such services, or on those which are under development in a wide range of research laboratories?

Mrs. Bottomley

I hope that some of the costs will fall, but at the moment subtitling requires a great deal of work by highly trained staff, using sophisticated and expensive video and computer equipment. My information is that it takes a year to train a subtitler, who can then subtitle about 30 minutes of screen time in a working day.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed on me the case for subtitling on many occasions. I understand that, in 1995–96—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is right that there has been progress since then—the BBC subtitled approximately a third of its network schedules. That cost it £4.7 million. The ITV Association estimates subtitling costs at £570 per programme hour. Costs of that order would be prohibitive for small companies, and would effectively bar new broadcasters from the market—the very broadcasters whom we hope will introduce a fresh diversity of new and innovative programming services into the digital arena.

At the heart of this matter is the need to find a solution which improves access for those with sensory disabilities, without imposing impracticable requirements on broadcasters which could jeopardise the viability of digital terrestrial broadcasting and the advantages that it will bring to all viewers. The aim of the Government's new clause and amendments is therefore to establish targets set at a realistic level and apply them, through the ITC code, to programme rather than multiplex providers.

Amendment No. 168 provides that, by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by the ITC, and that not less than 10 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio-description.

These target percentages are amendable by order. I will have the power to increase them to reflect future technological advances. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. So not only is what we propose the first rung on the ladder, but there is a clear and convenient mechanism for adding further rungs in response to improved technology, without the need for further primary legislation.

Mr. Rowlands

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but will she explain why no obligation should be placed on the multiplex operators? In Committee, it was discovered that multiplex operators would be involved in quality of programming and a host of other issues related to programmes. Surely there should also be some obligation on the multiplex operators.

Mrs. Bottomley

The secret is to have an arrangement which delivers the results in the most effective way possible. The issue is the responsibility and work of the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator.

We want to avoid everyone at every level taking on an additional element of involvement. We want the right body to deliver the results. As my hon. Friend the Minister explained most persuasively in Committee, that right body is more appropriately the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator. I believe that that is a pragmatic approach, based on which body will deliver the results most effectively. As with virtually every other part of the Bill, we have been at pains to listen to the regulators about what would deliver the result most effectively, as well as to listen to the views of hon. Members and other experts.

The targets will be specified in the Bill as matters that must be included in the ITC's code. Adherence to that code will be a licence condition for all broadcasters. So we believe that we have the proper mechanisms in place to deliver the improvements that the House is seeking.

In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target in the Bill for sign language presentation. New clause 32, however, contains a power for me to set such a target by order, after consultation with the ITC, as soon as the technology permits.

Since finalising the new clause, I have talked further with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West and others, and I have reconsidered the position in the light of the strength of the arguments that they have put to me. I have therefore decided, after the necessary consultation with the ITC, to introduce by order a 5 per cent. target for sign language. I have been convinced that that will give the spur needed to broadcasters to make positive efforts in that area, without imposing unachievable targets upon them.

I recognise that that target will be demanding for broadcasters, but I am sufficiently satisfied that it was the introduction of a numerical target in the Broadcasting. Act 1990 that caused the substantial changes that we have seen. We should replicate that experience.

Amendment No. 168 provides that the ITC may exclude certain types of programmes from the targets set in the Bill. The ITC will identify, in consultation with broadcasters and, most importantly, organisations representing the interests of those with sensory impairments—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was right to press for that—which types of programme should be excluded. In so doing, the ITC will draw on its expertise in this area to determine the types of programme for which it would not be practicable to require the levels of assistance set out in the Bill, or in the order.

But let me emphasise, and make it unequivocally clear, that we expect those exclusions to be the exception rather than the rule: the vast majority of programme services will be subject to the targets set out in the Bill. Also, exclusion does not mean complete exemption. It simply means that lower targets than those appearing in the Bill should be applied. I am writing today to Sir George Russell to emphasise those points, and I can make that letter available.

There can be no doubt that the proposals represent real gains for viewers with sensory disabilities. The existing broadcasters will continue to meet the subtitling target set under the 1990 Act on analogue; those requirements will read across to digital as part of those broadcasters' simulcasts, and will remain in place after analogue switch-off. Furthermore, in addition to maintaining existing broadcasters' subtitling responsibilities, the proposals will also ensure that a similar proportion of new digital programming will be subtitled. By any calculation, that represents a considerable increase in the overall amount of programming that will be available with subtitles.

Our proposals also provide that, for the first time, a firm target of 10 per cent. is set for audio-description for existing and new broadcasters. I have also now made it clear that there will be a 5 per cent. target for sign language. Again, that will apply to the simulcast services as well as to the new channels.

Our proposals also recognise that many different types of programme service are likely to be broadcast on digital television, and provision of subtitling, signing or audio-description at the same level will be extremely difficult for some of those programme types.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

I simply want to ask whether the 5 per cent. target for sign language represents 5 per cent. of all programmes that are broadcast or 5 per cent. of those after the excluded programmes have been removed? Can the right hon. Lady clarify that?

Mrs. Bottomley

As I have explained, there is room for exemptions for all the numerical targets, but they will be a minority. Programmers will be set the 5 per cent. target, but they may be allowed some exemptions. As the letter to Sir George Russell makes clear, however, those exemptions must be a minority and dealt with exceptionally.

Mrs. Campbell

That was not the point I was making. I asked whether 5 per cent. was 5 per cent. of all programmes broadcast or 5 per cent. of those remaining after the excluded ones had been taken out.

Mrs. Bottomley

It is 5 per cent. when the excluded ones have been taken out, but the key is that there must be the strictest interpretation of the exclusions.

Mr. Dafis

Does the Secretary of State have any calculation of what the percentage of the total would be?

Mrs. Bottomley

What I made clear was that I expect the exemptions to be an absolute minimum, so I expect broadcasters to achieve their targets as set out on the face of the Bill.

The change is very significant. The credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for his persistence and vigorous championing of this cause. People with sensory disabilities have every reason to appreciate all that he has done.

I very much hope that the House will accept the new clauses.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

One of the highlights in Committee was holding a debate on this extremely important issue and making some progress—in fact, defeating the Government when we tabled the original amendment, which the amendments before us water down considerably. Argument raged around the idea that audio-description, subtitling and sign language would grow of their own accord. Those of us who voted for the amendment in Committee knew that, on the contrary, a quota was needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that, but I am extremely disappointed by the low levels of quota that seem to be being accepted.

We are talking about a quota of only 5 per cent. for sign language, but that is 5 per cent. of an already lower total, because exclusions will be allowed. The Secretary of State has refused to estimate what that 5 per cent. may be as a percentage of total programmes broadcast; it is a pity that she did not feel able to do so.

When she replies, will the Secretary of State tell us why programmes will be allowed to be excluded? All three different ways of communicating with people with sensory deprivations are extremely sophisticated in their own right. Anyone who has seen someone signing a song knows that it is the most incredible experience to see how effectively sign language can communicate. I wonder why any programmes should be excluded. By doing so, we are saying that people who have these disabilities can be excluded from a whole section of programme making. I can think of no reason why there should be exclusions.

I am disappointed by the low percentages of coverage of the targets to which new clauses 32 and 33 refer. I do not see why we could not have tried to do better for the many millions of people who suffer from sensory deprivations, to try to include them in the digital revolution at a time when the technology has finally allowed extra space in the spectrum to enable us to broadcast these extra visual helps to those with sensory deprivations, without interfering directly with mainstream channels.

There is no need for the terrible box at the side in which one must watch the signer; these services could be broadcast on a completely different channel. The watering down that has resulted in new clauses 32 and 33 has denied us a real opportunity to include in the digital revolution millions of our fellow citizens who suffer from these disabilities.

I welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle that a quota is the way to progress. I am bitterly disappointed that the Secretary of State could not have ensured that the percentages for coverage with these new services for those with sensory deprivations were much higher than the 5 or 10 per cent. of a total that, because of her issue about excluded programmes, is already lower than what our original amendment, tabled in Committee, would have allowed.

Millions of people with disabilities will be bitterly disappointed by the very modest targets that the Secretary of State has set herself, and by the fact that the chance seems to have passed her by to include millions of our fellow men and women with sensory deprivations in the digital terrestrial broadcasting revolution.

4.45 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

The announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mark several significant steps forward for people who are profoundly deaf and for the blind. On the face of it, the three amendments that I forced through in Committee—admittedly, with the help of the Opposition parties—set very high thresholds, and made a very significant move forward. I shall seek to explain why the House should accept this compromise.

Ms Eagle

It is too modest.

Mr. Hughes

I will come to that, if the hon. Lady stops seeking to interrupt.

I am very grateful to all those people who helped me to put pressure on for those things—not only people in the lobbying organisations, but Members on both sides of the House. Specifically, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the former Secretary of State, was very influential, and I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich—

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Eltham.

Mr. Hughes

I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was influential in these matters as well.

The Bill provided a one-off opportunity. We had to achieve a very specific agenda for the profoundly deaf and for the blind—to get thresholds on to the face of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, had we not had the specific and escalating threshold for subtitles in the Broadcasting Act 1990, we should not have been in the position we are in now.

My right hon. Friend adopted a slightly different approach, but she has set in train the same thing. We have the 10 per cent. threshold for subtitling, which is the same as before; we have the 10 per cent. threshold for audio-description; and now, by order, we shall have the 5 per cent. threshold for the in-vision signing.

Provided that the House adopts my right hon. Friend's new clauses, their structure enables my right hon. Friend or any other Secretary of State of any party to increase those thresholds by order at any time that appears sensible. My right hon. Friend has sought to produce a compromise, holding the ring between the interests of the profoundly deaf and the blind and those of the industry trying to expand into this new digital era.

The broadcasters' arguments were over-egged. In private, they would tell one, "Well, of course we said that this would make digital television unaffordable, but perhaps we were laying it on a bit thick, and, yes, we could afford these things, although we would prefer to spend a bit less on them." One should bear that attitude in mind when being lectured by their documentaries about what the Government or Opposition or anyone else should do.

In achieving that balance, my right hon. Friend allows anyone to monitor what is going on, and allows a future Secretary of State to say, "There has been so much progress technically that I can now increase this threshold or double that one, and I can put pressure on the broadcasters." Therefore, the facilities available to the profoundly deaf and to the blind will escalate.

Mr. Maclennan

I admire the trenchant way in which the hon. Gentleman moved his amendments in Committee. I recognise too that politics is the art of the possible. But does he accept that the order-making power to which he refers could be used in either direction—to lower as well as increase the targets? That is the risk of the approach that we may be urged to adopt.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, I certainly considered that. I think it extremely unlikely that a Secretary of State would lower the targets, or be able to get that through the House. I had many dealings in government with the private Members' Bills on disability of a couple of years ago, so I know what strong feelings are generated on both sides of the House when it comes to this important subject. I therefore believe that the movement will be upward.

The list of excluded programmes worried me a lot. They were an invention by the Department. The consultation document issued by my right hon. Friend included a wide range of programmes that would be excluded, some of which were already subtitled and enjoyed by profoundly deaf people. For instance, "Top of the Pops" has a large audience of deaf people. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has already mentioned deaf signing for songs, which can be a moving spectacle. I myself have heard a number of deaf choirs sing in churches.

All this is well understood, so it was quite wrong to include such programmes in the list of exclusions. The same goes for sports programmes; in general, they should not be excluded, either. Euro 96 has been subtitled and enjoyed by many deaf people. The point that the industry has strongly made, to me and my right hon. Friend, is that there is scope, with the new digital services, for experimental programmes—mostly live services—that might cost almost as much as the original programmes' budgets. It was therefore right to allow programme makers to negotiate lower targets with the ITC, so as to get the services under way.

As my right hon. Friend said in her letter to Sir George Russell, programmes to which different targets apply are likely to be those which are predominantly live, though this might change as technology develops. Certainly, technology is changing all the time, and in-vision signing and subtitling will be generated automatically, at least on some programmes, to a standard acceptable for those sorts of programme. Other programmes, however, will always need more detailed subtitling work.

Mr. Rowlands

The hon. Gentleman has negotiated in detail with the Government on this matter. Is he happy that no obligation is to be placed on multiplex operators?

Mr. Hughes

I did discuss that with my right hon. Friend. As she said a few minutes ago, it is a matter of pragmatic judgment. I thought the same as the hon. Gentleman when I framed the amendments to which we agreed in Committee. But my right hon. Friend's officials believe that the matter is best left to the programme makers. It is difficult to argue with that. It was indeed my view that the multiplex route was better, but that was only a personal view. What really matters is whether the services are going to be provided. Since they are, I will not argue about whether the obligation should be on the multiplexes or the programme providers.

This change will mean a great deal to the profoundly deaf and the blind: it is a great step forward for them. It provides them with access to entertainment that was beyond their grasp before. The new clauses will give them increasing access to the programmes they want to watch.

I know that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to whose officials I spoke earlier this morning, regards the move as a significant step forward, and believes that it should speed up in years ahead. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, of course, would like more audio-description. What is proposed in that area is relatively modest, and I trust that my right hon. Friend and her successors will continue to see what is possible. I think that this service could be increased more quickly than some of the others.

A constituent of mine, Phyllis Knowles, who has been profoundly deaf from birth, first interested me in deaf choirs, and so on, when I became a Member of this place in 1987. She invited me to be the president of the Harrow deaf club, a position I still hold. I am sure that she, who lobbied for many years for a fair deal for deaf people, would endorse what my right hon. Friend has done today.

Unfortunately, however, I attended her funeral last Thursday; just two weeks ago she was tragically killed in a car accident. She was a brave lady who never gave way, and who always believed that another step in the right direction could be taken. I believe that she, like others who are profoundly deaf or blind, would have welcomed what we are doing today.

Dr. John Cunningham

Historically, the broadcasters always resist advances for people with sensory disabilities. That is a well-known fact. When considering the amendments agreed to in Committee, the Secretary of State has obviously come down on the side of the broadcasters at the expense of people with disabilities. The proposals represent a retrenchment of the position we agreed in Committee.

I heard the Minister say, in the context of an earlier amendment, that a very large number of people would like Gaelic programmes with subtitles. I must inform him that there is a much larger group of people, nationwide, who would like to watch all programmes with subtitles—there are millions more of them. That is the target on which he should be concentrating; he should be thinking of the many who are deaf or hearing impaired.

The Government have been too negative in their approach throughout. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), a Back Bencher, and note that it is only because of his persistence—with the support of all the Opposition parties—that these provisions found their way into the Bill at all. Why was nothing included in the legislation at the outset? That is surely the acid test of whether the Government wanted anything done for people with disabilities. But there was nothing of this type in the Bill until the hon. Gentleman had the courage and persistence—supported by my hon. Friends and members of the minority parties—to move his amendments in Committee.

The Government are embarking on a new form of broadcasting. There has been a great deal of hype about the revolutionary nature of the technology. One of the big selling points of digital television has been the development of the highly successful multi-media industries. These are multi-million-pound businesses, not impoverished little organisations. The other big selling points are better pictures and sound, and more choice of channels.

It is rather misleading to claim more choice for people with sensory disabilities, however. There will be no more choice for them as a result of this technological innovation and expansion unless significant advances of the kind envisaged by the Committee are made on their behalf. If they are not, one of the Government's central claims for the introduction of this legislation will be denied.

One of the advantages of digital television is that it should be possible to add subtitles, sign language and audio description much more easily than at present. We currently have the capacity and the technology, but the willingness to use it more generously on behalf of people with disabilities is absent.

I listened carefully to the speeches of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Harrow, West—I wanted to hear what he had to say before I spoke in the debate. The Secretary of State referred to cost—we are talking about highly profitable companies that are looking to expand their activities as a result of the legislation. The Secretary of State mentioned a figure of a few million pounds. If she is thinking about the cost. she should take the number of households that have one member with some impairment and then multiply that number of households by the amount of the BBC licensing fee. She will see that the licensing fee received from those households alone is much higher than the cost to which she referred. I do not accept her argument—nor will the millions of people about whom we are talking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to the movement of technology. I expect that voice recognition packages for technology will be commonly available in the period envisaged in the original amendments discussed in Committee. As my hon. Friend said, they are already available in some circumstances. I believe that they will be commonly and cheaply available in the future. With the rapid advances of technology, there is no reason to suppose that this will not be significant in reducing the cost.

5 pm

Contrary to what the Secretary of State claimed, the Government have a bad record, not a good one on support for people with disabilities—as we have seen repeatedly in the Chamber, over the years, in our attempts to give disabled people the rights that others enjoy. The Government do not come out of this well. The right hon. Lady has said that she is responding positively to what the Committee decided and to what her hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West wants. However, she is responding at a level that is much lower than that envisaged by the Committee when it decided to make the changes.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about the compromise. He urged hon. Members to accept the compromise—as he is apparently doing—because the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about it. However, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is less happy about the compromise. The hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the British Deaf Association or about the Deaf Broadcasting Council. Will he tell the House whether they are happy about the compromise? The Deaf Broadcasting Council wrote to all Members of Parliament on 26 June, and stated: The RNIB, RNID, British Deaf Association, and Deaf Broadcasting Council do not consider that these steps come near to adequately meeting the needs of the people we represent. Therefore we urge you to resist any efforts to remove or weaken these amendments in next week's debate. An attempt to this end is almost certain to happen. The council knew very well that such an attempt would come from the Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point. Naturally, all the organisations that he mentioned—they lobbied collectively—would be happiest with the highest possible thresholds. However, they have always understood that the important thing was to get thresholds into the Bill and the mechanisms within it, so that future Secretaries of State could increase them. That is the context in which I said what I did.

Dr. Cunningham

From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that not all the organisations that represent people with sensory disabilities are happy about or supportive of the Secretary of State's position—I put it no more strongly than that.

Ms Eagle

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) seems to be saying that, now that we have the mechanisms in the Bill, it is for future Governments to do a much better job than his Government have done?

Dr. Cunningham

Yes, I was coming to that point. The warning bell was rung by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he said that giving Secretaries of State discretionary powers is often a double-edged sword, because they can use them in many different ways—sometimes generously and benignly, and sometimes negatively and unhelpfully. We have yet to see the draft order, and it may be couched in terms that will allow only increases rather than decreases. That would be a hopeful sign.

There has been much comment about programme exclusions. Hon. Members should not seek to list programme exclusions—I believe that this is what the hon. Member for Harrow, West sought to do originally, and what the Committee agreed to do—but should seek to include as many people with disabilities as possible in the broadcasts of programmes and events that those of us who are fortunate enough not to suffer any of these disabilities enjoy regularly and as a matter of course in our everyday lives. I believe that that is the positive way in which legislation should approach these problems—and I shall wait for the Secretary of State's response. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to resist the changes set out in the amendment.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)

It is a great sadness that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate and seek to—

Dr. Cunningham

Just for the record—as the hon. Gentleman always begins his speeches with these sorts of comments—I have come to the debate at the exact same time, and on the same occasion, as the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gale

If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished my first sentence, he might have taken it in context. It is a great sadness that he has come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate, apparently for the specific purpose of denigrating the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The Westcliffe house Royal National for Institute for the Blind home and the Royal School for Deaf Children are in my constituency. I take a particular interest in matters affecting the community. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for putting his case. However, I felt unable to support his measure—he knows this, we have discussed it—in Committee. As someone who has been involved in broadcasting for almost 30 years, I believe that what he proposes is practically and technically impossible—certainly not realisable within the context of the transfer from analogue to digital broadcasting and in the context of the investment that is necessary in digital broadcasting.

It does not surprise me in the slightest that Labour Members choose to pay no account whatever to cost. Cost is a consideration which must be taken into account, particularly by small television companies. It is blindingly obvious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot possibly put forward any quota of programmes that might be discounted by the Independent Television Commission. That power has been given to the ITC, and it has been made clear to the House that that power will be used sparingly.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I understand that this is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has chosen graciously to accept the Government amendments—has taken the sentiments expressed on both sides of the Committee and translated them into something practicable, not something that is blue sky, pie in the sky, unrealisable and, therefore, unfair to the people whose hopes we might have raised.

Mr. Miller

I thought that you understood the technology.

Mr. Gale

I do understand the technology and. as a result, I recognise the financial constraints placed on small companies by a blanket coverage of the kind suggested in Committee. Today we have proposed a workable step forward which has been recognised as such by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the RNIB. This morning, I received a letter from two constituents, Mary McCann and Peter Gallagher, who are pupils at the Royal School for Deaf Children. They say: As deaf people the provision of Sign Language interpreting and subtitles is very important because both facilities help us to access the information. We do not want subtitling reduced. Without it we cannot understand the programmes and are denied information. We understand that interpreting can be distracting and therefore could not be offered on many programmes. However, we hope that the Breakfast News will still be subtitled. Please will you put our feelings forward to Parliament".

My right hon. Friend has met their concerns. She made it plain this afternoon that the existing subtitling that is available on analogue television will be transferred to simulcast when digital and analogue are simulcast and will then be rolled over into digital when analogue is taken off air.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents—who correctly make the point that sign language interpreting and subtitling improve their understanding of television programmes—that, if that provision is available on the new digital services, viewers who are not hard of hearing will be able to turn off the services and therefore not be distracted by them? I hope that that is understood.

Mr. Gale

That is not the point that my constituents were making: they want the existing service to continue. My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely plain that the existing service will be not only continued but enhanced. The Secretary of State said—to those who bothered to listen—that she would go down the path that was first trodden by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in 1990. Those of us who served on the Committee that examined that legislation will remember clearly the way in which he introduced. a measure of subtitling that was realisable and achievable. It was a significant move forward in the provision of facilities for our constituents who suffer aural or visual disabilities. The Secretary of State has taken that a step further this afternoon—and she has done so in a measured and a realisable manner.

That is the sensible way forward. The Government's proposals are workable and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West understands that and is prepared to accept them. I hope that the rest of the House will do likewise.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)

I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come forward with some proposals. The 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation is welcome, but I still do not believe that the amendments go far enough. I know that many blind and visually impaired people and many deaf and hard-of-hearing people will not feel that the Government amendments address the real problems.

For instance, I gather that subtitling exemptions will be increased from what was passed in Committee. Again, I do not honestly think that that is acceptable. That will mean that programmes that could have been seen by a large number of disabled people will not be able to be accessed. We must protect the provisions that were passed in Committee. Deaf and visually impaired people are excluded enough—there are 8.7 million deaf, hard-of-hearing or visually impaired people in the United Kingdom. On average, hearing people can listen to 672 hours of television a week. At present, only two hours of that is in sign language.

These people pay their television licence fee. There is a £1.25 reduction for blind people—that is an absolute disgrace. People are paying to be able to access all programmes. Although, as I said, it is welcome that the Secretary of State has moved to a certain extent, I believe that many people throughout the country will be deeply disappointed in the Government again. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for his work in getting the Government to move this far. It is a small step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is only a small step and we will have to vote against the amendments.

5.15 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South)

I sympathised with the amendments moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—although his arguments might have been more persuasive to sympathisers like me if, in sending out extracts from the Committee transcript, he had supplied copies of the Minister's speech as well as his own. That might have given us a clearer idea of the scale of his requests.

I came to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today—given my sympathies with my hon. Friend's argument—not least because one of my grandfathers was deaf and one of my grandmothers was blind. Although I understand that only one of those conditions is potentially hereditary, I lived through the experience of those disabilities in my immediate family and I sympathise with those who suffer from them.

I am not prone to disloyalty to the Government—as the Whips may be reassured to hear—and I am conscious that I have exhausted my personal quota of disloyalty to my right hon. Friend in another capacity. However, it is not merely chivalry that causes me to say that I shall support the Government this evening. My right hon. Friend has listened to the debate, responded fairly to the points put to her and been flexible. In those circumstances, I shall support her—not least on the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West.

I am happy to be enlisted in any future guerrilla force that chooses to harry both the Government and the broadcasters as soon as economics and technology allow so that further resources might be made available to those with disabilities. However, on the strength of the speech by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) today, I shall not enlist in a force that is led by him. I have as little confidence in his grasp of the economics and the technology of this industry as I have in his understanding of the profit motive in the working of the national lottery—an issue which I suspect will haunt the Opposition in a wider context in future.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

I shall not detain the House long, but I must make two or three points that have not been raised before.

I refer first to the Secretary of State's point about the 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation and to the exempted programmes, which is a new concept in the Bill. I am worried that, if 10 per cent. of programmes are exempted or excluded, 5 per cent. of the remaining 90 per cent. is only a 4.5 per cent. sign language target. If 20 per cent. of programmes are excluded, the target becomes only 4 per cent. Therefore, the 5 per cent. target is already being whittled away: we are talking about not 5 per cent. but 4.5 or 4 per cent. All hon. Members must understand that point.

Much has been said on both sides of the House about the economics of the debate. The real problem is that we do not know what new technology will be available in a few years and how cheap or expensive it will be. We also do not know the other side of the equation. For instance, we know that 7 million people are hard of hearing, but we do not know how many of them do not believe that it is worth buying a television licence as they cannot understand the programmes that they watch. If the service can be improved, some of those people may decide to buy licences and subscribe, which will alter the economic balance.

I wish to make a further point.

Mr. Gale

The hon. Lady is wrong. The balance of the equation is not altered, because the licence fee goes to the BBC and many of the companies about which we are talking get no benefit.

Mrs. Campbell

I understand that the BBC objected to the higher limits that were introduced in Committee because of the economics. My question is whether the BBC has taken the other side of the equation into account. [Interruption.] I do not understand the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has made from a sedentary position, but I hope that the BBC will take into account the other side of the equation when it considers the economics.

There is a higher percentage of hard-of-hearing people among the elderly and those with other frailties. They need access to broadcasting, because it is one of the few means of communication that they can enjoy. On those grounds, we should seek to include them in a way that technology is at last beginning to make possible.

Mr. Miller

The House will know that I am keen to ensure that the Bill will give the broadcasting industry the best opportunity to be at the forefront of the new technologies. We should recognize—it is interesting that no Conservative Member has made this point—that we have a leading role in the technology involved in subtitling film media, including translation from foreign languages, general teletext provision and single channel provision.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage was previously Secretary of State for Health and she should know that the technologies are developing quickly. She will remember, I hope, the work undertaken by IBM, with some of our finest surgeons, to develop voice recognition technology. Rapid progress has been made, thanks to British scientists working with the national health service. It is extraordinary that the Government have failed to recognise that we have more than a fledgling industry in that area. In fact, we have a massive potential industry which the Secretary of State is ignoring. [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister of State is giving some advice to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will recognise that my point is valid.

The quality of work in subtitling cannot be underestimated and we have a massive potential business opportunity in the United Kingdom and outside, if we allow the industry to flourish. The restrictions that the Secretary of State would place on the development of the technology—by not accepting the amendments made in Committee—will undermine that potential.

Some hon. Members have referred to cost. Of course, a cost would be incurred, but no one has been able to define the level of cost of today's technology or of the emergent technologies to which I have referred. It would be ludicrous for the Secretary of State to water down the Committee's work on the basis of cost, but not to give us any real figures. She cannot give us the figures because she does not understand the potential of the technology. I urge the House to resist the Government's attempts to water down the amendments made in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan

I greatly admire the role that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has played in extracting an important concession. Unlike the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the hon. Member for Harrow, West did not engage in guerrilla tactics: he went over the top at a time when his party are in government rather than putting his cause to one side and waiting for a change of government, although I am sure that he will want to continue his attack when that happens. The hon. Gentleman's campaign did not need guerrilla tactics: it needed a frontal assault and he recognised that. We supported him to the hilt and the changes that were made in Committee were an example of the effectiveness of cross-party co-operation. As I said earlier, Conservative Members eventually feel bound to accept the inevitable and I do not think any the less of the hon. Member for doing so.

Opposition Members are freer to speak their minds and I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if the House were to accept the Secretary of State's view we would not go far enough. Many organisations have lobbied to increase provision for the sensorily deprived. I doubt whether the order-making power, which the Secretary of State has said that she intends to use to guarantee 5 per cent. in-vision signing, will be used to ratchet up that provision. I think that we shall see a sliding scale, which could slide down as well as up under pressure from the programme providers.

The Secretary of State was on the defensive today, as she was bound to be, because the Committee expressed its views strongly. All hon. Members will know that once the primary legislation has been debated it is much more difficult to return to the issues and to ensure that they are constantly under consideration. I hope that the many people who have followed this debate will monitor the technology and cost implications of their suggestions on a yearly basis and will keep informed those of us who are concerned about the predicament of the sensorily deprived. I hope that people outside will press us to return to the issue regularly and frequently.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

We have had an interesting and illustrative debate about these enormously important matters. We have heard, once again, the mean-spirited and grudging attitude of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has achieved a singular step forward for people with sensory disabilities and they have every reason to pay tribute to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a great knowledge of these matters because the Royal School for Deaf Children is in his constituency, gave a realistic appraisal of some of the issues involved for the industry. He said, frankly and helpfully, that the provisions would impose great pressures on the industry, especially on small start-up businesses. The Labour party will wallow in the luxury of opposition in perpetuity because it is not prepared to face the economic realities of starting up a business and of job and wealth creation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the innovation and success of the film and broadcasting industry. The new technology is developing because for the past 17 years the industry has worked with a Government who recognise that endlessly burdening industry with regulations, rules, interference and bureaucracy merely smothers and destroys all opportunity to provide services which were previously inconceivable.

In discussing these matters, I have been well aware of the need to promote the industry and to encourage innovation in the digital era, not just the big boys that we are used to, but some of the new players. Moreover, as a result of my previous responsibilities, I have been all too aware of the difference that new technology and communications mean to people with disabilities. That is why I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for persisting. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet was right to say that the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) influenced me greatly in pressing further than may have been reasonable the interests of those with disabilities.

I wish to make a number of issues absolutely clear. 'The Bill as originally drafted contained a code for those matters, so they were part of the original Bill although they did not appear on the face of the Bill. That is the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was so enthusiastic. On exclusions, when hon. Members read carefully the letter to George Russell they will see that I expect exclusions to be an absolute minimum. Programmes in the excluded category should be subject to other targets, which should be achievable. They should not be excluded from targets altogether. Moreover, I expect them to be improved and ratcheted up as time goes by. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spoke for many when he said that he will press the Independent Television Commission and the Government to ensure that those targets are raised.

5.30 pm

We want digital television to have a good start. Through the steps achieved by hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, those with sensory disabilities will be at the heart of the new work from the start. It then seems right to ensure that standards improve as time goes by. My hon. Friend paid tribute to his constituent, Phyllis Knowles. We all share his sympathy in her tragic death. However, people with disabilities are so often an example in their persistence, courage and determination to achieve change. Through my hon. Friend's work, that has certainly been the case here.

I hope that the House will support these substantial improvements. They will be difficult for the industry, but they will be of profound long-term benefit to all those with sensory disabilities.

Dr. John Cunningham

The Secretary of State was less convincing the second time around than she was the first, not least because she wants the House to accept that the amendments promise more when in reality they deliver less. We shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 166 at the appropriate time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to