Clause 293 - Code relating to provision for
Communications Bill
11:00 am
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 285, in
clause 293, page 254, line 21, leave out 'from time to time' and insert
'at least once every three years'.
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 315, in
clause 293, page 254, line 29, at end insert-
'(1A) In exercising its functions under subsection (1) OFCOM must ensure that the providers of services to which this section applies provide users of those services with adequate information regarding the availability of and access to subtitling.'.
Amendment No. 316, in
clause 293, page 254, line 30, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.
Amendment No. 313, in
clause 293, page 254, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '50'.
Amendment No. 314, in
clause 293, page 255, line 22, at end insert
'taking account of whether a programme is provided on a channel which is normally offered to consumers as a separate service or as one of a number of channels forming part of a single service'.
Amendment No. 284, in
clause 293, page 255, line 41, at end insert-
'(9A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to collate and publish at least once each year details of the extent to which every service to which this section applies has met the obligations referred to in subsection (3).'.
Amendment No. 243, in
clause 299, page 258, line 34, after 'channels', insert-
'(aa) the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing including subtitling, audiodescription and signing;'.
Amendment No. 244, in
clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert-
'(2A) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities.'.
New clause 15-Conditions to secure access to audiodescription-
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set such general conditions as they consider appropriate for securing that audiodescribed television programmes, so far as provided in digital form, are-
(a) broadcast or otherwise transmitted; and
(b) made available for reception in an intelligible form,
by means of the electronic communications networks described in the conditions.'.
New clause 27-Conditions to secure access to public teletext service-
'The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM considers appropriate for securing that the provision of so much of the public teletext service as is provided in digital form is accessible to persons who are blind and partially sighted.'.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
We return to the issue of greater access for those who are deaf or visually impaired, some of the different aspects of which we have covered in earlier debates. Concern about that issue is felt throughout the Committee. The Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People have concerns about how the Bill could be improved to strengthen the protection for deaf and visually impaired people and they have done a good job in drawing those concerns to the attention of Committee members. That is reflected in the large number of amendments in the group, which have been tabled by all the parties that are represented in the Committee.
I will concentrate on my amendment No. 284, which was suggested by the RNID. Some of the amendments in the group were suggested by the RNIB and, although they were tabled by other Committee members, we share their objectives. I will, however, leave it to other hon. Members to develop their own arguments in relation to particular amendments.
Amendment No. 284 is small, but it would ensure that the information that is already being collected is put in the public domain. I am always conscious that in seeking to ensure greater access for deaf and blind people we should remember that sometimes that might involve some additional cost to the broadcasters. In this instance, however, I do not think that it would lead to a great burden on broadcasters. It is expected that Ofcom would maintain similar arrangements to those used by the ITC, whereby licence holders are required to provide details about what percentage of their programmes are subtitled. Such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the targets for subtitling, signing and audiodescription are being met. The amendment ensures that such information is freely available and can be inspected by those who have an interest in such matters. That could be achieved without great difficulty; Ofcom could publish the information on its website.
The purpose of amendment No. 284 is to create an environment where the legal requirements for subtitling are treated as merely minimum requirements. The broadcasters have shown good commitment to that. They have voluntarily gone beyond the minimum requirements: the BBC has committed to 100 per cent. subtitling provision for all its channels by 2009 and, as in previous years, ITV has committed to exceed the minimum requirement that it faces with the production of 114 hours of subtitling per week. Those developments are very welcome. It would be in the broadcasters' interests to get maximum credit for their record in this area, so I hope that they would also welcome the fact that that should be made widely available, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment No. 285 refers to the first line of clause 293, which states:
''It shall be the duty of OFCOM to draw up, and from time to time to review and revise, a code''.
To state that Ofcom should review the code ''from time to time'' is extraordinarily vague-it could mean once a week or once every 50 years. It would be helpful if Ofcom could be given an indication of the time scale that is envisaged for this obligation. We have suggested that ''from time to time'' should be replaced by
''at least once every three years''.
The code should be subject to fairly regular review because it deals with provisions with regard to which technology will inevitably play an important role. That technology is developing fast: unless there is a regular review, the impact of the code could be diminished, because it might no longer properly reflect what is technologically possible.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend not feel that the amendment presents a slight danger?
Although there needs to be a regular time for reviews, there might not need to be regular revisions. The amendment is phrased in such a way that if it were adopted the clause might force Ofcom to revise the code even when revision were unnecessary-in other words, a review might be necessary, but a revision might not.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I am not a lawyer, but my hon. Friend is suggesting that lawyers might interpret the amendment as stating that Ofcom has to revise the code every time that it reviews it. That would be ludicrous, but if that is an accurate legal interpretation, he would be right about the amendment presenting a danger that should be addressed. However, I think that it is unlikely that a lawyer would argue that. If the review concluded that the code was working perfectly, it would be nonsensical if Ofcom then felt that it had to revise it because the Bill said that it should do so.
I wish to return to technology, because that lies at the heart of the reason why there should be a regular review of the code. I offer as an example the current technological developments in subtitling provision-in relation to voice recognition technology, for instance. To illustrate the technological problems of that, I will make a diversion. I recently purchased voice recognition technology for my personal computer, and I spent several weeks speaking into it and getting complete gibberish appearing on the screen.
Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston, Labour)
Now the hon. Gentleman knows what we have to listen to!
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
Some hon. Members may think that that was an accurate reflection of what I said, but I would like to believe that it was a technological failure rather than a failure of what I was saying. I am assured that such technology is developing very quickly, and it is quite possible that, before too long, we will develop software that can automatically produce subtitling with much greater ease, and that would obviously increase productivity in subtitling.
Similar developments are occurring in relation to sign language provision. Virtual signing technology could eventually replace the need for a human interpreter. Also, closed signing, in which signing is selected by the viewer in the same way as subtitles, is another development in technology that Ofcom might have to consider in the not-too-distant future. Developments in broadcasting generally will also inevitably have an effect on the code. For example, the code will have to keep up to date with the growth of interactive television. That is still in its relatively early stages, but last night on ''The Life of Mammals'' on the BBC, David Attenborough said at one point that viewers with digital might like to press the red button to gain a little more information. Clearly, interactive television will provide more additional services as the technology develops. That, too, needs to be taken into account by Ofcom to ensure that the code properly reflects the current state of technology.
The amendment would ensure that we met the objectives that we all share. It would make sure that
Ofcom properly ensures greater access for deaf and visually impaired people, and that the code governing that is up to date and properly takes account of the fairly rapidly changing world of what is technologically possible.
Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)
My two amendments to clause 299 are included in the group of amendments under discussion. I must tell the Minister that last night I met people to talk about my private Member's Bill on sustainable energy. They regaled me with the story of how, after the Minister skilfully rejected my amendments to the Utilities Act 2000 on combined heat and power, people in the Department of Trade and Industry now wish that they had the sort of powers that I was pushing for. Given that, I hope that he will accept my amendments.
My amendments are designed to ensure that when Ofcom considers electronic programme guides, it takes into account not just the nature of the programmes but the design and nature of the EPGs, as those are key factors in determining whether people can use them. At the moment, a great deal of frustration is felt by those using the keypads, and those of us who are not as dexterous as others find them difficult to use. Disabled people have several problems to tackle regarding the nature of the design and how the programmes are accessed, and they need to be addressed. The code of practice is the right vehicle for doing so.
At the moment, a great deal of effort is spent on new technologies, as hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly mentioned. He also paid tribute to some broadcasters. The VISTA-Virtual Interface for a Set-Top Box Agent-project that the ITC, BSkyB and City university are trialling at the moment will revolutionise disabled viewing. However, there are a number of regulatory issues. My amendments would not tie down the service providers to a particular technology or solution, but would ensure that the issues were considered. It is right that we should address the issues under the code of practice, so that when people are developing new technologies, they know the sort of issues that need to be resolved. I am quite certain that, with good will, such disputes will be resolved. I could stray down the road of interactive television, but I will not. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of several issues about that.
There is no point developing the most wonderful multichannel environment with the most wonderful EPG if people cannot access it. My amendments would ensure that access and design would be tackled as part of the code of practice.
Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)
I shall speak briefly to new clause 15. This is our third debate on access for deaf and visually impaired people to broadcasting services. It is right that we have had that many debates because it gives us a chance to explore new aspects of services. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did that when he talked about interactive services.
My points about new clause 15 are similar to those that were raised during Tuesday's debate on clause 60. I want to ensure that broadcasters carry services to
allow deaf and visually impaired people to take advantage of subtitling and audiodescription as technology improves and there is a possibility of more services, especially in a digital format. On Tuesday, we said that technology such as DVD, which includes options for audiodescription or subtitling, is increasingly available. The services should become available through the mass media so that it is generally available rather than available only for individual purchase.
We tend to forget the wide extent to which subtitling is accessed. It is used not only by people who call themselves disabled, but by those who have a bit of trouble following the noise of a television in the background. Elderly people use subtitling most often, but others find it useful. People in Wales who want to learn Welsh use subtitles to follow Welsh-language programmes. Although watching subtitles on broadcast programmes was considered to be strange several years ago, it is now part of the viewing experience. The fact that pressing the interactive red button on a remote control often produces more text on screen will increase the extent to which people will use television to access a range of information and entertainment that mixes vision and text.
New clause 15 would ensure that Ofcom would set general conditions that it considered appropriate for the digital transmission of audiodescribed television programmes. We discussed the technical problems with that on Tuesday and the Minister told us why the availability of audiodescription on digital television had not moved along. He said that there had not been
enough co-ordination between different parties, and no doubt his comments were listened to.
The new clause would not prescribe the audiodescription that should be available but would mean that Ofcom would have a duty to decide the general conditions that it considered appropriate. I followed the Government's language in the Bill by giving Ofcom powers to decide what should be appropriate. The new clause does not prescribe in any shape or form. However, I want to ensure that Ofcom gives proper consideration to making audiodescription for programmes available in the widest possible form on digital. We discussed problems of satellites in that regard on Tuesday.
I hope that the Minister will accept that such a provision would strengthen Ofcom's role in relation to disabled people. During consideration of the Office of Communications Bill and this Bill, we have debated whether a representative of people with disabilities should serve on the Ofcom board. Given that that was turned down in favour of a small and narrow board of regulators, I hope that the Minister will accept that Ofcom should have a general duty to consider the matters.
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
Order. I deem it to be 11.25 am. We shall adjourn until 2.30 pm, and the Room will be locked in the meantime.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.