HL Deb 08 May 2001 vol 625 cc982-8

8.52 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order revises the percentage set out in subsection (3)(a) of Section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, which the Secretary of State is empowered to amend, after consultation with the Independent Television Commission, under subsection (1)(a) of Section 21 of the Act.

The order increases the minimum percentage of programmes that must be accompanied by subtitling for the deaf on digital terrestrial television services from 50 per cent to 80 per cent. Broadcasters are required to achieve that target by the 10th anniversary of the date of commencement of the provision of each digital terrestrial programme service, the first of which started in November 1998.

The intention to increase the percentage was announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 29th January this year. That was the result of a review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio description services on DTT. A report on the review was published on the same day and a copy has been placed in the House Libraries.

We know that digital technology has great potential for opening up new opportunities for each and every citizen and we aim to ensure that all groups can benefit from it. Access for all—able-bodied people and people with disabilities alike—is essential. People with disabilities will be able to gain substantially from the new and sophisticated services that digital technology can offer; services like home banking, home shopping and access to the Internet. Television services, including news, current affairs and entertainment programmes, are valued by people with disabilities, including those with sensory impairments. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport undertook the review I mentioned a moment ago.

It began with officials discussing the issues with consumer groups, major broadcasters and the ITC, to gauge initial reactions. A consultation paper followed in July, to which 36 responses were received and carefully considered. Having taken all those responses into account, Ministers concluded that the target for the provision of subtitling on DTT programmes, which will be of benefit to at least 8.7 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing, should be raised from 50 per cent to at least 80 per cent. The order we are debating today, which was approved in the other place last Monday, will achieve just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the minimum target does not have to be achieved until a DTT service reaches its 10th anniversary. The first such service began on 1st November 1998 and, therefore, in view of the time that will elapse before even the longest established digital service will celebrate its 10th birthday, we believe that it is perfectly reasonable for the increased target of 80 per cent to apply to existing services in the same way as to services which have yet to emerge.

The ITC has the power to set interim targets. Those begin at at least 5 per cent for the first year and rise by 5 per cent each year to reach the existing 50 per cent target by year 10. All channels are meeting, and in some cases exceeding, these. The ITC will issue a revised code with new interim targets once this order has been made.

It has been noted, and questioned before, that the statutory targets for subtitling, signing and audio description do not include advertisements. As is the case with other programming requirements in broadcasting legislation, advertisements are specifically excluded from the definition of programmes in subsection (14) of Section 20 of the 1996 Act. That said, many advertisers already see the benefits of voluntarily providing the service. After all, it is in their interest to get their message across to a potential market of 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing people. Although the ITC does not monitor the level of subtitling in advertisements, it has advised the DCMS that about 50 to 60 per cent of advertisers currently subtitle advertisements voluntarily.

We are keen to achieve a level playing field across all delivery platforms. That is why we also intend to extend the statutory targets—for subtitling, signing and audio description—on DTT to digital cable and digital satellite services. Primary legislation is required and we hope to introduce a draft communications Bill, to include this provision, early in the next Parliament.

For some time now the Government have been encouraging, these broadcasters to increase the amount of subtitling they voluntarily provide on their digital services, and some of the more established channels are providing a good service. Indeed, several of them exceed the existing interim targets despite a low audience share. But we believe that minimum statutory requirements need to be imposed for progress to be made.

We want to ensure the maximum practicable amount of subtitling provision. Some groups think it should be 100 per cent. In introducing the debate on the draft order in the other place last week, Janet Anderson referred to a question asked in this House recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, along the lines of, "If the BBC says it can achieve 100 per cent, why can't the commercial channels?" The BBC has no statutory requirement to provide a subtitling service but, following the recommendation of the Davies review panel on the future funding of the BBC, the corporation accepted that on its new digital services, it would aim to achieve 50 per cent of programmes being subtitled in the next five years and 100 per cent by 2009.

My answer to a similar question, put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, recently, was as follows: We need to strike the right balance between practicability and benefit. During the consultation exercise that preceded the Government's recent announcement of the review, concerns were expressed, including by the ITC, that 100 per cent subtitling on digital terrestrial television was not a feasible target…It would be extremely difficult and expensive to subtitle all live programmes, late-running programmes and late-delivered material, such as promotions between programmes. There is also a danger that the financial costs to the smaller channels might result in them leaving the DTT platform…The 80 per cent target is challenging but achievable and is in line with the analogue target for 2004 We must always look to improved technology in signing to increase the figure. If that becomes possible in the future, we shall certainly look to do that.

In conclusion, in my view the draft order is compatible with the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

9 p.m.

Lord Luke

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome and support the order. It will also be very much welcomed by the 5 million deaf and hard of hearing people who regularly use subtitles and the t million who depend upon subtitles in their viewing of television. The potential number of users is even higher as there are, as has been said, about 8.7 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing. The target set in this order is not as high as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People had hoped, but I note that it warmly welcomes the order and recognises that this is a very important step forward. I thank the RNID for its helpful and pertinent briefing.

It is right as a matter of principle to ensure that as much broadcast material as possible is subtitled. After all, everyone loses out when hearing impaired people do not have the chance to participate fully in society. The media, particularly television, are largely responsible for forming the cultural reference points of society. The programmes that we watch on television and video are very much the topics of everyday conversation at home and at work. Subtitles and signing mean that hearing impaired people can keep in touch. Limited access can leave them culturally excluded and socially sidelined. It is important that we should be able to enjoy viewing television together as a group of family or friends, some of whom may have hearing impairment, and then be able to discuss the finer points of the programme afterwards.

We welcome the progress that the industry has made since the 1996 Act came into force and we agree that it is now time to go further. As the Minister pointed out, the 1996 Act provided for the extension that we are now considering and for consultation with the ITC. We all welcome the fact that various main terrestrial channels have accepted the new 80 per cent target. Channel 3 is already exceeding the target and BBC 2 has made great efforts.

The Minister mentioned that the Government intend to include cable and satellite television under the future communications Bill. We agree that the time is right to do that. I understand that Sky has already enthusiastically endorsed the target and has made significant progress towards it. We look forward to taking matters further through primary legislation at the earliest opportunity.

The Minister said that 80 per cent, not 100 per cent, was set as the target because some digital terrestrial television programmes are difficult to subtitle: in particular, news programmes and live broadcasts present problems. Those who do the subtitling for such programmes are lucky if they get even a few minutes' advance notice of the script and have to work at breakneck speed. They do an excellent job. It is true that live subtitling is more complicated and expensive than pre-recorded programmes, but it is equally true that many live programmes have an immense significance. Indeed, this is precisely why they are broadcast on a live basis. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a high proportion of live events, such as the State Opening of Parliament and the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, should be accessible to the whole nation.

We should strike a balance between practicability and benefit, but it is right that we should exceed 80 per cent as soon as that is appropriate. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People is right to campaign hard on this matter. We need to press the matter further. At the same time, it is important to take into account the circumstances in which the industry has to operate.

I note that the RNID briefing makes reference to the low level of subtitling of advertising on television, a point mentioned by the Minister. At present, there are no statutory requirements for advertisements to be subtitled on digital terrestrial television. The ITC has estimated that about 50 per cent to 60 per cent of advertisers currently subtitle voluntarily. It seems surprising that advertisers are prepared the ignore the potential market of up to 8.7 million who have some level of hearing loss. I hope that they wake up to this mistake very soon.

We welcome and support the order. It is an important step forward, although we will want to make further progress in due course.

Lord Addington

My Lords, when one is campaigning and in the process of putting pressure on the Government to make improvements, and the Government bring forward an improvement from 50 per cent to 80 per cent, it would be churlish to do anything other than welcome it. However, there is always the caveat that one wishes for something better. The problem in this respect is that the major player in public service broadcasting has said that it can take subtitling to 100 per cent. That is something which hovers over this issue, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

Most of the arguments on this subject have already been rehearsed. We are not so much having a debate today as an ongoing dialogue. Basically we want to see the figure increased because at present a large percentage of the population find themselves excluded from something which is supposed to be for the mass of the population. It is that simple. I hope the Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that television companies exceed the 80 per cent figure.

I agree with virtually every word that has been said. However, it has been pointed out to me by the RNID briefing—I do not pretend that I would have spotted this myself—that if 80 per cent of programmes are to be subtitled, how will we choose the 20 per cent of programmes that are not to be subtitled? We could exclude all music programmes, for instance, but do the Government accept that there are different kinds of deafness and different kinds of hearing problem, and that the cultural contents of programmes are different—for instance, youth programmes have a different musical background from other music programmes? If we use that kind of criterion to choose the 20 per cent, we may well exclude some people from a major part of the social interaction which public service broadcasting is supposed to encourage.

The RNID suggests that the exclusion of programmes should be carried out simply on the basis of those with the lowest viewing figures. That would be a case of making a bad law. I have probably got that wrong, but never mind. If we get to that situation, we must know why a programme is being excluded. If we can achieve that, we shall be on a good path. I shall continue to apply whatever pressure and nudges I can to the Government to try to reach the figure of 100 per cent—or at least as near as damn it—but basically it would be churlish to say anything other than, "Well done, but we hope that you do better soon".

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords and with the RNID in warmly welcoming the draft order, which increases the requirement for subtitling for the digital terrestrial television service from 50 per cent to 80 per cent within 10 years. It is a victory for common sense. Unless we take steps to ensure that the needs of sensorily impaired people are accommodated in the digital age, as the Government have done in the draft order, we shall find that new technology serves only to increase the sense of exclusion felt by deaf and blind people rather than to diminish it.

I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments, but it is disappointing that the Government are reluctant to ensure that DTT channels match the BBC's voluntary target of a 100 per cent subtitling provision. The arguments advanced by the ITC, based on financial cost and feasibility, appear weak. Subtitling is now cheap to provide at only £400 per hour of programming. The cost will be further reduced over the next few years, and there is the increasing number of repeat programmes. Moreover, the rapid development in voice recognition technology should make it possible to cope with the problems of late-delivery programmes raised by the Minister.

I understand that the ITC plans to review whether Channel 3 and Channel 4 could exceed the 80 per cent target. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify when, this year, the ITC will start and complete the review. An increase to a target of 100 per cent would be extremely welcome.

Will the Minister clarify the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; namely, what guidance is given to the ITC in deciding which programmes can be excluded from subtitling? At present, decisions appear to be based solely on assumptions as to the subjects that interest deaf and hard-of-hearing people. That can lead to all the dangers of patronising decision-making. I join with the RNID in asking the Minister to make sure that clear guidance is given, so that the process for making exclusions is transparent and is based on objective criteria.

Finally, I join with other noble Lords in giving the draft order the warmest welcome and support. I thank the Government for introducing it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have responded to the order in such a positive way. I am grateful in particular to those who have highlighted the support for the order that has come from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. I did not quote from the letter, of which I, too, have received a copy, but I do not need to since its 'views have been made clear.

Let me make clear, because this is the main thrust of the contributions that have been made, my strong belief that, as technology advances, it ought to be possible to increase the target from 80 per cent—perhaps not to 100 per cent but certainly to a higher figure than the one that is presently proposed. Eighty per cent is the figure that the ITC has arrived at as being realistic under the existing circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, points out, improvements, in particular in voice recognition technology, will not only make it possible for late-delivered programmes to be subtitled where it is not physically possible for that to happen at present, but will continue to reduce the cost of subtitling.

Under those circumstances, in a relatively short period—certainly within the next 10 years—the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, of the choice of the 20 per cent of programmes that are not subtitled will no longer be relevant. We are working towards a situation in which, wherever it is physically possible to provide subtitling, we shall seek to require that there should be subtitling. Therefore, there will not be criteria such as the lowest viewing figures or whether a programme is thought by some outside body to be the kind of thing that people with hearing difficulties will or will not be interested in.

I was asked specifically about the ITC review on analogue. A seminar will be held on 14th May for broadcasters and hard-of-hearing groups and I hope that progress will be made at that stage. As to the specific issue of exclusions in the interim period, in the drafting of the communications Bill we are looking to providing guidance on that issue on the face of the Bill. In the light of the general welcome for the order, I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.