Memorandum by RNIB and RNID
Television plays a vital role in the cultural
landscape of modern society.
Access to television and other audiovisual services
is as important to disabled people as it is to non-disabled people.
RNIB research has shown for instance that 96 per cent of blind
and partially sighted people want to watch TV.
However, many of the one in seven adults in
Europe with a hearing loss and 30 million with serious sight loss
are being denied proper access to TV because of low levels of
access services, such as subtitling, audio description, audio
subtitling and sign language. This problem is now compounded by
the fact that navigation around digital TV sets takes place through
on-screen "electronic programme guides". These are visually
based and inaccessible to blind people.
RNIB and RNID have therefore been closely following
the progress of the TVWF revision for a number of years. We feel
it is important we respond to the Sub-Committee's enquiry to ensure
that it is briefed about our concerns regarding the directive.
We have structured our response below in line
with the questions in the Sub-Committee's call for evidence. We
have answered only those questions which fall within our remit.
3(a) In our current rapidly converging and
evolving technological and market environment, is it appropriate
to try to recast the regulatory framework?
Yes—some revision is clearly necessary.
Since the TVWF directive was originally introduced, we have seen
developments such as Digital TV, IPTV, mobile TV and so on. These
technical developments and the EU's moves to create an internal
market have changed the audiovisual services market significantly.
In any case, it appears certain given the level
of political backing in the EU Member States that the directive
will be revised. Almost all EU Member States support this. It
is perhaps time now to move away from questioning the very idea
of the revision of the directive, as some stakeholders continue
to do, and to look at how to ensure the best possible outcome
from its almost inevitable revision.
3(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages
of regulating this area? Are the regulatory costs proportionate
to the benefits?
We have followed with interest the debate in
the UK and elsewhere about the advantages and disadvantages of
regulating this area. We recognise that this is a complex and
tricky issue. It is beyond our remit to comment on all of the
questions this debate gives rise to.
Our particular concern is that the current TVWF
directive omits an important public policy concern, namely access
to audiovisual services for disabled people. In this particular
area, the advantage of regulation would be to improve access to
the millions of blind, partially sighted, deaf and hard of hearing
people who currently find it difficult to watch TV.
The benefit of this to disabled people cannot
be calculated in financial terms. It is impossible therefore to
provide a scientific cost- benefit analysis for the regulation
of accessibility. However, it is important to understand that
ensuring access to audiovisual services for the widest number
of people will assist the proper functioning of the internal market
by increasing the number of customers the market enjoys.
Some examples of cost:
New technology is constantly bringing down the
cost of providing subtitling. The Dutch subtitling campaign SOAP!
point out that the cost of subtitling in Holland constitutes less
than 1 per cent of programme budgets. In the UK, channels are
required to provide access services if they are able to afford
the assessed cost of up to 1 per cent of their revenue. This currently
applies to 76 channels in the UK.
The access services industry is also flourishing
in countries where they are provided. One industry source has
informally estimated that the UK market is worth £40 million
while another has put the figure at closer to £50 million.
4(b) Does the Proposal contain measures that
will effectively protect public interest objectives?
The current proposal lacks measures to protect
a key public interest objective, namely access to audiovisual
services by disabled people.
This is something that the European Parliament
and disability organisations have been calling for since 2003.
Prior to the publication of the proposal to revise the TVWF Directive,
the European Parliament twice called for the directive to include
accessibility for disabled people (Perry Report 2003 and Weber
report in 2005).
Independent user research conducted for OFCOM
earlier this year shows that the demand for access services such
as audio description and subtitling is very significant in the
UK.
(Television access services review, see http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/accessservs/summary/)
The review found that 7.5 million people said
that they had used subtitles to watch television, of whom about
6 million did not have a hearing impairment. Results from the
case studies found that those who had used audio description regarded
it as very helpful in understanding programmes better, and that
a significant proportion of respondents who had not used audio
description were keen to try it.
Europe-wide research carried out in 2005-06
by the European Blind Union into disabled people's access to television
demonstrated that the demand for more accessible TV is high across
the EU, but that supply is pitifully low. The report can be found
at the following link: http://www.euroblind.org/fichiersGB/TV-survey.htm
It should be noted that Article 26 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union "recognises and
respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from
measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupation
integration and participation in the life in the community."
TV access services are just such a measure.
Likewise, the European Commission's 2005 eaccessibility
Communication (COM(2005) 425) stresses the need to make digital
television accessible to disabled people.
For such charters and communications to be meaningful,
the needs and rights they identify must be supported by EU governments,
incorporated into EU legislation and converted into action. In
the case of audiovisual services, this of course means the TVWF
directive.
5. The third group of questions focus
on specific topics addressed in the Proposal.
These are:
Defining the nature of the regulated services—Is
there agreement on the Commission's proposal to distinguish between
linear and non-linear audiovisual media services?
No, this is clearly still a bone of contention
at the time of writing. RNIB and RNID believe that in relation
to our specific call for access for disabled people to be written
into the directive, there is a need to ensure that this covers
both "linear" and "non-linear" services.
In a few years time it is likely that relatively
few people will be watching TV in a "linear" fashion.
Many will be using video on demand or internet-based audiovisual
services, which could easily be considered "non-linear".
The huge choice and flexibility of these services will no doubt
attract many viewers.
Disabled viewers will naturally want to benefit
from these services too.
However, if the revised directive only covered
the accessibility of traditional, "linear" services
for disabled people, we would find that the directive would still
not ensure disabled peoples' access to TV via these new platforms.
(As mentioned earlier, without accessibility legislation, the
market is unlikely to provide accessible audiovisual content and
services.)
Regulatory approach—What role should industry
self-regulation play in the new regulatory framework?
We have worked with industry to endeavour to
ensure the accessibility of its products and services for disabled
people. We note that industry strongly advocates self-regulation
as a means to ensure accessibility of TV for disabled people,
among other objectives. However, in this field, the record of
self-regulation is poor. Self-regulation has not provided a solution
for blind or deaf people wishing to have audio described, subtitled
or signed television programmes, for instance. The only EU state
with any significant level of audio description is currently the
UK. (At around 8 per cent of programmes.) It is not by chance
that the UK is also the only EU Member State which has a legal
requirement for this service.
ABOUT RNIB AND
RNID
RNIB (Royal National Institute of the Blind)
campaigns for a world where people who are blind or partially
sighted enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, opportunities
and quality of life as people who are sighted. Promoting social
inclusion and challenging discrimination is one of the key areas
we focus on. We empower people who are blind or partially sighted
in the UK, help remove the barriers they face and help to prevent
blindness.
RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf people)
is the UK's largest charity representing the needs of its 35,000
members and supporters and the broader community of nine million
deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK. RNID's vision is to
ensure that deafness and hearing loss are not barriers to opportunity
and fulfillment. We do this by raising awareness of deafness and
hearing loss, by providing services, through social, medical and
technological research and development and by campaigning for
better legislation and practice.
| 
