| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is wrong. The balance of the equation is not altered, because the licence fee goes to the BBC and many of the companies about which we are talking get no benefit.
Mrs. Campbell: I understand that the BBC objected to the higher limits that were introduced in Committee because of the economics. My question is whether the BBC has taken the other side of the equation into account. [Interruption.] I do not understand the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has made from a sedentary position, but I hope that the BBC will take into account the other side of the equation when it considers the economics.
There is a higher percentage of hard-of-hearing people among the elderly and those with other frailties. They need access to broadcasting, because it is one of the few means of communication that they can enjoy. On those grounds, we should seek to include them in a way that technology is at last beginning to make possible.
Mr. Miller:
The House will know that I am keen to ensure that the Bill will give the broadcasting industry the best opportunity to be at the forefront of the new technologies. We should recognise--it is interesting that no Conservative Member has made this point--that we have a leading role in the technology involved in subtitling film media, including translation from foreign languages, general teletext provision and single channel provision.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage was previously Secretary of State for Health and she should know that the technologies are developing quickly. She will remember, I hope, the work undertaken by IBM, with some of our finest surgeons, to develop voice recognition technology. Rapid progress has been made, thanks to British scientists working with the national health service. It is extraordinary that the Government have failed to recognise that we have more than a fledgling industry in that area. In fact, we have a massive potential industry which the Secretary of State is ignoring. [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister of State is giving some advice to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will recognise that my point is valid.
The quality of work in subtitling cannot be underestimated and we have a massive potential business opportunity in the United Kingdom and outside, if we allow the industry to flourish. The restrictions that the Secretary of State would place on the development of the technology--by not accepting the amendments made in Committee--will undermine that potential.
Some hon. Members have referred to cost. Of course, a cost would be incurred, but no one has been able to define the level of cost of today's technology or of the emergent technologies to which I have referred. It would be ludicrous for the Secretary of State to water down the Committee's work on the basis of cost, but not to give us any real figures. She cannot give us the figures because she does not understand the potential of the technology. I urge the House to resist the Government's attempts to water down the amendments made in Committee.
Mr. Maclennan:
I greatly admire the role that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has played in extracting an important concession. Unlike the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the hon. Member for Harrow, West did not engage in guerrilla tactics: he went over the top at a time when his party are in government rather than putting his cause to one side and waiting for a change of government, although I am sure that he will want to continue his attack when that happens. The hon. Gentleman's campaign did not need guerrilla tactics: it needed a frontal assault and he recognised that. We supported him to the hilt and the changes that were made in Committee were an example of the effectiveness of cross-party co-operation. As I said earlier, Conservative Members eventually feel bound to accept the inevitable and I do not think any the less of the hon. Member for doing so.
Opposition Members are freer to speak their minds and I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if the House were to accept the Secretary of State's view we would not go far enough. Many organisations have lobbied to increase provision for the sensorily deprived. I doubt whether the order-making power, which the Secretary of State has said that she intends to use to guarantee 5 per cent. in-vision signing, will be used to ratchet up that provision. I think that we shall see a sliding scale, which could slide down as well as up under pressure from the programme providers.
The Secretary of State was on the defensive today, as she was bound to be, because the Committee expressed its views strongly. All hon. Members will know that once the primary legislation has been debated it is much more difficult to return to the issues and to ensure that they are constantly under consideration. I hope that the many people who have followed this debate will monitor the
technology and cost implications of their suggestions on a yearly basis and will keep informed those of us who are concerned about the predicament of the sensorily deprived. I hope that people outside will press us to return to the issue regularly and frequently.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley:
We have had an interesting and illustrative debate about these enormously important matters. We have heard, once again, the mean-spirited and grudging attitude of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has achieved a singular step forward for people with sensory disabilities and they have every reason to pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a great knowledge of these matters because the Royal School for Deaf Children is in his constituency, gave a realistic appraisal of some of the issues involved for the industry. He said, frankly and helpfully, that the provisions would impose great pressures on the industry, especially on small start-up businesses. The Labour party will wallow in the luxury of opposition in perpetuity because it is not prepared to face the economic realities of starting up a business and of job and wealth creation.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the innovation and success of the film and broadcasting industry. The new technology is developing because for the past 17 years the industry has worked with a Government who recognise that endlessly burdening industry with regulations, rules, interference and bureaucracy merely smothers and destroys all opportunity to provide services which were previously inconceivable.
In discussing these matters, I have been well aware of the need to promote the industry and to encourage innovation in the digital era, not just the big boys that we are used to, but some of the new players. Moreover, as a result of my previous responsibilities, I have been all too aware of the difference that new technology and communications mean to people with disabilities. That is why I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for persisting. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet was right to say that the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) influenced me greatly in pressing further than may have been reasonable the interests of those with disabilities.
We want digital television to have a good start. Through the steps achieved by hon. Friend the Member
for Harrow, West, those with sensory disabilities will be at the heart of the new work from the start. It then seems right to ensure that standards improve as time goes by. My hon. Friend paid tribute to his constituent, Phyllis Knowles. We all share his sympathy in her tragic death. However, people with disabilities are so often an example in their persistence, courage and determination to achieve change. Through my hon. Friend's work, that has certainly been the case here.
I hope that the House will support these substantial improvements. They will be difficult for the industry, but they will be of profound long-term benefit to all those with sensory disabilities.
Dr. John Cunningham:
The Secretary of State was less convincing the second time around than she was the first, not least because she wants the House to accept that the amendments promise more when in reality they deliver less. We shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 166 at the appropriate time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
'(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code maintained by them under section 20 are observed in the provision of digital programme services and qualifying services.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a digital programme licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for requiring the holder of the licence, on entering into any such agreement as is mentioned in section 19(3)(a), to submit to the Commission proposals for ensuring that the code is complied with in relation to the provision of the digital programme service.
(3) Where the holder of a digital programme licence has submitted proposals to the Commission in accordance with a condition included in the licence by virtue of subsection (2) or has failed to comply with such a condition, the Commission shall, after consulting him, vary the licence so as to include in the licence such further conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the code in the provision of the digital programme service in question.'--[Mr. Sproat.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
'.--(1) In section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (unauthorised decoders), for subsection (1) there is substituted--
"(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable--
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both."
(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) shall not apply to any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'--[Mr. Ian Taylor.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |