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