HL Deb 23 January 1997 vol 577 cc884-9

8.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order which we are debating today honours the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill in the other place on 1st July last year to introduce a 5 per cent. target for the provision of sign language in digital programme services. This target is to be achieved by every service within 10 years of its commencement.

The Broadcasting Act 1996 makes particular reference to subtitling audio description and sign language in the interests of those with sensory impairments. It sets out on the face of the Act specific minimum targets for subtitling and audio description provision in digital programme services for the benefit of those with sensory impairments.

The statutory targets are that by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by the ITC and not less than 10 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio description. These percentages can be amended by order. The Act also provides for the ITC to set interim targets.

In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, the Government decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target for signing in the Act itself but that the Act should contain a provision for the Secretary of State to set such a target by order. That is what we are considering this evening and is, as I have already mentioned, representing the commitment given by the Secretary of State in another place that it would be 5 per cent.

The Broadcasting Act 1996 also provides for the ITC, after consultation with those representing interested parties and the broadcasters, to draw up and review from time to time a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with sight or hearing impairment. The code will apply to all digital services, including the simulcast services of the existing analogue broadcasters, which at present are subject only to subtitling requirements. It has to include the targets set out in the Act and in any statutory order, which obviously includes that which is contained in the order that we are considering now.

On 29th October last year the ITC published for public consultation its draft code on subtitling, audio description and signing, inviting comments by 17th December. The draft code sets interim targets for non-excluded programmes and for subtitling and audio description in excluded programmes. The commission has received a number of detailed responses from bodies representing those with sensory impairments. I know that it is now considering very carefully the points raised before publishing its final code.

I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)

8.30 p.m.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, I welcome this order on sign language and I am delighted that it is part of the Bill. I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Donoughue for his support on this order and on all measures affecting deaf, and indeed all disabled, people. I valued his support during our debates on the Bill.

Unfortunately, I cannot extend the same compliment to the Minister. He opposed all our efforts to bring in the 5 per cent. target for signing. It is not a personal matter; he did it on behalf of the Government. However, he did oppose our attempts to introduce targets for signing and subtitling. That did not reflect very well on the Government during the debates in this House. Fortunately, a change made in the other place means that we now have the 5 per cent. signing provision.

Although the noble Lord mentioned subtitling and audio description, this order relates only to signing. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to signing. The order makes a modest start. However, if the ITC does not change its attitude it will be a disastrous start.

As the noble Lord said, Parliament trusted the ITC to ensure that 5 per cent. of digital programmes are signed. It gave the ITC power to decide which programmes are to be excluded and to decide on the interim targets.

However, in its draft code the ITC has shown that it may betray that trust. Incredibly, the draft code specifies that everything should be excluded except news and factual programmes. So the 5 per cent. target relates to a very small proportion of programmes—thanks to the ITC's fatuous interpretation of its draft code.

Was it the will of Parliament that the provision on signing should apply to only 5 per cent. of a tiny proportion of programmes? I refer the House to an exchange in the other place during debate on the Broadcasting Bill. The Secretary of State was asked to elucidate on the 5 per cent. figure. Virginia Bottomley said: 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".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/96; col. 575.] That is not the language of excluding everything and simply allowing the percentage to apply to news and factual programmes. The Secretary of State referred to, "a minority".

When the Secretary of State was pressed on that figure, she said: 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".—[col. 575.] When pressed again, she said: 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".—[col. 575.] That could not be more specific and categorical. The Secretary of State was reflecting the will of Parliament. She was speaking for the Government, and was supported by Members on both sides in the other place. Members on both sides in this House have supported that 5 per cent.

The question now for the noble Lord is this. Does he support the views of the Secretary of State as expressed in another place which I have made clear to him? Because he does his homework as well as any Minister, I am sure that he will have read the remarks himself. Does he accept and support the views of the Secretary of State that the exemptions should be an absolute minimum and the strictest interpretation of the exclusions? If so, I suggest that the noble Lord should make urgent representations to the ITC. The code is so far only in draft. When the ITC publishes the substantive code it will be a scandal if it is allowed to go ahead with only 5 per cent. of a tiny fraction of programmes. It would be an insult to deaf people.

The ITC has failed to appreciate the importance of signing to profoundly deaf people who rely on sign language. It has exaggerated the difficulties. The noble Lord spoke a moment ago about the difficulties involved, the problems as regards new technology and all the rest of it. But there is no real problem in relation to signing programmes. There is great exaggeration on the part of the ITC. It is conforming to the letter of the law but denying the spirit of the law. It will make deaf people feel cheated and will incur the opposition, even hostility, of some of us in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that it will reconsider.

On the question of phasing in, the draft code merely provides that 1 per cent. should be signed by the fourth year. Fancy that! It will take four years to sign 1 per cent. of only news and factual programmes. That is incredible. I could not believe it when I read it. That organisation should be renamed the Independent Tortoise Commission. That would be a fair reflection of the way it is behaving in relation to these provisions for deaf people.

Some signing is needed from day one, and there is no reason why that cannot be done. It is up to the ITC. The ITC watches television companies. But we should make it clear that Parliament is watching the ITC—and so are millions of profoundly deaf people. We hope, and expect, that Parliament's decision to have 5 per cent. signing of most programmes will be respected. And we want very much faster progress than the ITC has envisaged.

Lord McNally

My Lords, when Ministers exercise secondary powers it is extremely important that both Houses of Parliament examine how those powers are being carried out. Although this is one of those orders that may appear to go through almost on the nod, the deficiencies pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, show the importance of Parliament keeping a close eye on how these matters are carried forward.

Parliament wills certain things; the regulators are supposed to devise ways of implementing them; and then the companies are supposed to comply. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, there seems to be an enormous gap between what Parliament willed in the primary legislation and what is now being put to us.

Here we have big, rich, powerful companies which are being tested on how they will treat the minorities for whom they supply an important service. I do not believe that anyone can underestimate the power of television for the deaf in enlarging their horizons. Yet as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, the draft order seems to narrow the definition of the service as willed by Parliament and indicated by Ministers in another place. Perhaps even more serious, when Parliament asks a regulatory body to carry out its will and an industry to comply, it expects that what is brought forward should reflect a certain seriousness of intent.

I would say to the Minister in all seriousness that the timescale for implementation is frankly absurd when one considers the broadcasting industry. We shall probably have had at least another four broadcasting Acts by the time this is carried though. Can the Minister explain the extraordinarily long time given for implementation? We are not talking here about new technology or difficult proposals that will impose heavy burdens on companies. If there was the will, it would be possible to implement these proposals much more quickly. If that were the case, it would indicate a great deal more seriousness of intent.

For my clarification, if not for those who are more expert on this matter, does the reference to digital programme services apply to all digital programme services, those to be brought in by satellite as well as terrestrial services, or does it refer only to terrestrial services?

We have here a draft statutory instrument which falls far short of the will of Parliament. The regulator should look at the matter again and treat the will of Parliament far more seriously.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their contributions to this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about the technology involved. It is important that in discussing this we are clear that we are talking about digital terrestrial television, which is something that does not yet exist for most practical purposes. We are in fact talking about new technology.

I accept that some of the technology employed in this new form of transmitting television signals already exists, but it is important that we recognise that what is being done is entirely novel and will be very expensive. That was recognised when we debated this matter both here and in the other place and is an essential element behind the thinking—as I think was agreed on all sides of the House—on the right approach to adopt in considering this matter.

On the one hand, there is the very desirable aspiration to make sure that as many as possible of those with sensory disabilities of one kind and another can benefit from the new technology. On the other hand, if those involved in trying to drive this technology forward to achieve the benefits that it can deliver find that it is so expensive that they cannot do it, the whole process founders.

To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, this refers to digital terrestrial television services. The code relates to that and the specific provisions of Section 20 of the Act relate simply to digital terrestrial services.

One of the characteristics of the approach adopted is that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act it is open to the Secretary of State to adjust the target figures set on the face of it. That is important bearing in mind the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. As events occur, it is possible for these targets to be changed by reference to the statutory instrument that would have to be taken through both Houses of Parliament. We are not talking about a rigid system; we are talking about a flexible system.

Of course I support the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is important that in this context we confine ourselves to focusing on matters relating to signing and bear in mind the important point that it is for the ITC to take the decisions against the backdrop of Parliament's opinion and the law as it stands. I know that the ITC will listen to the comments made by your Lordships in this debate before coming to any final conclusion.

In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it is up to the ITC. I do not believe that it will not respond to the whole issue. It has consulted widely both those concerned with the interests of people with disabilities and the broadcasting companies in an entirely responsible manner. It is against that background that I commend the order to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.