| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |