Draft Communications Bill - Sense submission

Sense is a national organisation, established nearly 50 years ago, that supports people with deafblindness and associated disabilities. There are three main groups of people to whom Sense provides services and these are described below.

• People who are born deafblind, often as a consequence of maternal rubella or a variety of genetic conditions.

• People with Usher syndrome, who are usually born with a hearing loss and whose sight deteriorates in young adulthood (there are three types, but this is the most common).

• Elderly people whose sight and hearing is failing. Many of these people would be surprised to hear themselves described as deafblind despite their difficulties with both vision and hearing.

• Light touch regulation is not enough to guarantee that the needs of people with sensory impairments are addressed in the fields of telecommunications and broadcasting. It is not always possible to construct a business case for services such as subtitling, audio description and accessible equipment, and an element of compulsion is needed.

• The bill should refer to consumers rather than customers. Not all consumers are customers.

• The creation of a single regulator is sensible in an increasingly convergent industry. The opportunity must be seized to make OFCOM a body that represents consumers, including people with visual and hearing impairments, rather than producers of equipment and content.

• We note that there is no intention to try to regulate Internet-based broadcasting such as multicast broadcasts. We think this is a missed opportunity, given the increasing convergence in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. However, there is a tangential reference to the Internet in Clause 10 of the draft Bill, which refers to "electronic media", defined as covering "any electronic communications network". The Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill also refer to Internet filtering systems. Is this a paving measure to enable the Government to address this in the future without the need for further primary legislation? The Internet is a medium that enables equal access to information for many sensory impaired people and with convergence of media it is important to ensure that access remains good.

• The requirement in Clause 3 (2d) that OFCOM has regard to the needs of persons with disabilities must be strengthened.

• Members of the Consumer Panel should be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than OFCOM.

• It would be highly desirable for a person with a sensory impairment to be on the consumer panel. Both sight and hearing impaired people are often excluded from access to broadcast media so the Consumer Panel needs to address this by including consumers who represent these excluded groups. We note that the Secretary of State has said that the consumer panel must not simply be drawn from the existing range of consumer organisations.

• There is no mention in the Bill of how the Consumer Panel will be funded. It must be funded to an adequate level to enable it to function independently of OFCOM.

• A register of organisations competent to give advice on sensory impairment issues, and which could be consulted where appropriate, should be drawn up. The Office of Communications Bill 2002 states that OFCOM may establish advisory committees as it sees fit, and it would be desirable for an advisory committee on disability to be established.

• Increasing self-regulation must not be allowed to lead to the lowering of standards. OFCOM must establish minimum standards for subtitles, which could be European or international. They should cover presentation and technical quality. It is essential that this common code of practice for the provision of subtitles is at least equivalent to the standard currently set by the ITC for the analogue service.

• Subtitles must be of adequate size and appear within a black box.

• The current quality standards for signing as set by ITC must be maintained.

• The target of 90% for subtitling is welcome. However, we note that the BBC is committed to subtitling 100% of output by 2008. This should not be allowed to slip as a result of the passage of the Bill, especially as the BBC will continue to benefit from the licence fee. The end target for subtitling provision should be as close as possible to 100% for most broadcasters.

• Targets for audio description must also be set. We note that Dr Kim Howells is on record as saying that he was determined to achieve better access to audio-description on digital TV for visually impaired people.

• Where subtitling/audio description/closed signing breaks down during the transmission of a programme, the broadcaster should be obliged to re-transmit the programme within a reasonable time (say two weeks) with the subtitling/audio description properly transmitted. There should be a duty on the broadcaster to advertise this via suitable media such as Teletext and other electronic programme guides.

• The granting of exemptions for signing and especially subtitling should be very limited.

• Broadcasters should be required to publicise the existence of subtitles and inform people how to access them. Programme information such as Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) should include reference to subtitling and signing, and should be accessible to visually impaired people.

• Cable and satellite broadcasters should face demanding interim targets, especially for subtitling.

• The Consumer Panel must have sufficient resources to act independently and carry out research, including research into sensory impairment issues and the quality of subtitling and signing provision. Research should also include aspects of technology, for example continuation of the "closed" signing project and the reduction of excessive background noise, for example by the use of directional microphones. Another area where more research is essential is the implications of the proposed analogue switch-off for people with sensory impairments.

• The Content Board should be required to monitor sensory impairment issues and report on this work.

• The funding of OFCOM should be considered in the light of the scrapping of 400 licences. Will there be adequate independence from those paying the licence fees, i.e. the communications industry? Is there a way of "buffering" this?

• There should be no barriers to accessing directory enquiries for people with physical disabilities or sensory impairments.

• There should be a duty on telecommunications providers to continue to work to resolve the problem of interference with hearing aids.

• Design standards for telecommunications equipment should take account of the needs of people with sensory impairments.

• It should be mandatory for access to text and Typetalk/TextDirect calls to be provided from any service provider and from any platform

• Payphones with induction couplers must continue to be provided in public places. These are accessible to some hearing impaired people who cannot use mobile telephones. There is also an issue for visually impaired people with new payphones using multifunction LCD screens which make the phone inaccessible to people who cannot see the screen.