Home > About Ofcom > Corporate Structure and Governance > Older & Disabled > Notes of Meetings > Minutes 1st meeting

06|05|04

Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Ofcom Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled People, 06 May 2004

Present:

Mike Whitlam (Chairman)
Janet Askham
Denis Carter
Simon Cramp
Gareth Davies
Caroline Ellis
Sally Greengross
Fred Heddell
Jonathan Kaye
Lydia Thomas
Ross Trotter

In attendance (*for parts of the meeting)

*David Currie, Chairman, Ofcom
*Peter Bourton, Senior Policy Executive, Ofcom
Bradley Brady, Public & Political Relations Manager, Ofcom
Kevin Carey, Member of Ofcom Content Board
David Edwards, Secretariat, Ofcom
*Khalid Hayat, Manager, Strategy and Development, Ofcom
*Graham Howell, Secretary to the Corporation, Ofcom
*Frank Phillips, Consumer Manager, Ofcom
*Alan Pridmore, Consumer Manager, Ofcom
*Dougal Scott, Telecoms Review Project Manager, Ofcom
Tony Stoller, External Relations Director, Ofcom
*Sarah Thane, Adviser, Contents & Standards, Ofcom
Bob Twitchin, Member of Ofcom Consumer Panel

Support

Lisa Gulland, speech to text reporter
Julie Ross, P.A. to Simon Cramp

1. Welcome and introductions

1.1 David Currie welcomed members to the inaugural meeting of the Committee and emphasised that the Ofcom Board took issues affecting older and disabled people very seriously. Whether required by statute or not, it had always been Ofcom's intention to set up a disability advisory committee. The Board would consider the advice of the Committee carefully; when it did not follow that advice it would give appropriate reasons for its decisions.

1.2 Mike Whitlam noted that members had not been appointed to represent specific groups of consumers but as full committee members, representing all constituents, and would be asked to take the lead on a particular area of work or interest. There would be a team building event, to coincide with the next meeting. Today's meeting would include briefing on major issues on Ofcom's current agenda but item 6 on Television Access Services would be for substantive discussion. It was agreed that sufficient time should be allowed for that item and the agenda modified if necessary. Members were invited to introduce themselves and spoke briefly about the experience they brought to the Committee

2. Governance of Ofcom

2.1 Graham Howell gave a short presentation on the development of Ofcom, its governance, structure, responsibilities and current work plan.

3. Content Board and Consumer Panel

3.1 Kevin Carey spoke briefly about the role of the Content Board, a Committee of the main Ofcom Board with delegated and advisory responsibility for content issues. Major areas of its work included broadcasting codes and licensing. Decisions that could have an important commercial impact were referred to the main Board. Kevin Carey would attend quarterly meetings as a Content Board representative at the committee's invitation. He would discuss with the Committee what the Content Board had made a matter of public record but it would not be proper for him to discuss how the Content Board had voted on a particular issue.

3.2 Bob Twitchin spoke briefly about the Ofcom Consumer Panel. He referred Committee members to the Panel's Statement of Intent, which had been published on its website. The Statement explained the Panel's way of working. It had drawn up a set of principles to identify priorities and would embark on a major research exercise to identify key consumer concerns. Bob Twitchin would take the Panel lead on issues affecting people with disabilities and the Panel Chairman, Colette Bowe, would lead on issues affecting older people; they would alternate attendance at Committee meetings at the Committee's invitation.

4. Roundtable discussion

4.1 This was to have been an opportunity for members to brainstorm and flag up issues for the committee's future agendas. There was insufficient time to take this item and it was agreed to roll it on to agenda item 7.

5. Current Issues

5.1 Ofcom's Public Service Broadcasting Review

5.1.1 Khalid Hayat gave a presentation on the Review. Ofcom was required to conduct the Review under the terms of the Communications Act 2003. Phase 1 had been published for consultation and the consultation period closed on 15 June. The Report focussed on the current effectiveness of public service broadcasting and included the findings of a survey of 6,000 households. Phase 2, to be published in late Summer 2004, would look at future prospects for Public Service Broadcasting and Phase 3, to be published at the end of the year, would contain Ofcom's final proposals and recommendations. Members commented that disability programming was often broadcast in the early hours of the morning. It was at the margins of schedules and part of a trend that meant less arts, news and other PSB programming at peak times. It was clear that the committee would, within its remit, work to change this situation.

5.2 Ofcom's Telecoms Review

5.2.1 Dougal Scott gave a presentation on the Telecoms Strategic Review. Phase 1 of the review was a consultation document recently published which posed five fundamental questions, eg what would a well functioning telecoms market look like and what was effective competition? It addressed the overall policy framework rather than individual policy issues. Phase 2 would consider policy options and be published in the Summer. Phase 3 would be a statement by the end of the year on Ofcom's approach to regulation. Issues for the Committee could include consumer information, and the difficulty of making tariff comparisons, and universal service and its funding. UK regulation was constrained by EU Directives, which included the requirement to conduct periodic market reviews. The Telecoms Review would feed into the next round of market reviews and a review of the EU framework which was expected within the next two to three years.

5.3 Ofcom's Universal Service Review

5.3.1 Alan Pridmore explained the background to universal service in telecoms. Its object was to ensure that basic telecoms services were available at affordable prices to anyone that made a reasonable request. It included provision of public payphones and a range of measures aimed at customers on low incomes, people with disabilities and consumers in rural areas. A review was underway, including a research exercise to understand the views of consumers and a mystery shopping exercise to find out what operators tell customers about their services. Universal service options would be finalised in the Summer with a consultation running to October. The Strategic Review of telecoms would look at universal service in the longer term, including specifically the impact of broadband and how mobile substitution would affect how universal service is delivered. The universal service review would have a near-term focus but would have to fit with long-term strategy.

5.3.2 Frank Phillips spoke about disability issues within the overall framework for universal service. The Universal Services Directive imposed a duty to ensure that the provision of telephone services for disabled people, were equivalent to those enjoyed by other end-users. It also imposed a duty to ensure that disabled people could take advantage of a choice of providers. The review would include questions about the future provision of the text relay service, its funding and how it should encompass new technologies.

5.3.3 A member expressed disappointment that some issues would have to wait until a more fundamental review in the future, eg funding of the text relay service. Another cautioned that there would remain justification for regulation rather than reliance on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It was not the case that 'reasonable adjustments' to services could be easily enforced to make them accessible to disabled people.

6. Televison Access Services & Electronic Programme Guides

6.1 Peter Bourton introduced the discussion on television access services. The services were subtitling, signing and audio description. Three criteria had been developed to look at whether television channels should be required to provide these services: audience benefit, cost and affordability. If a broadcaster had a very small market share there would be little practical benefit in obliging it to provide them. Revenues rather than profitability would be used to determine whether services were affordable to broadcasters but this criterion could be reviewed in the future. Practicability was another issue. Set top boxes available in the UK were unable to support subtitling in non-European languages. In response to views on its December 2003 consultation on a draft code, Ofcom now proposed that music channels and live discussion programmes should be required to be subtitled. It had proposed to set targets in steps, at the end of year 1, year 5 and year 10. It was now considering the merits of more frequent steps. Since the consultation paper was drawn up, a set top box had become available which enabled people to receive audio description via digital terrestrial channels. Because of this, and Ofcom's proposal that broadcasters make use of current satellite technology to make audio description available by satellite, Ofcom was considering whether to raise initial targets for audio description.

6.2 In the course of detailed discussion, individual members made the following points:

Part of the problem with stating that broadcasters with low market shares would not be required to provide access services, because few disabled people watched their programmes, was that if disabled people could access their programmes their market share could be larger.
It was not clear why the annual targets of the former Independent Television Commission (ITC) had been abandoned.
Costs included in Ofcom's impact statement appeared to have been overestimated; it was likely that far more broadcasters would be able to afford to provide access services.
Some broadcasters provided subtitling without any obligation; this suggested that it was not viewed by all broadcasters as a regulatory burden.
The number of programmes that are subtitled or audio described should be increased, particularly if new can technology facilitate it.
Thought should be given to programme type when requiring access services to be provided. For blind people there was limited value in audio describing the weather forecast or the news as opposed to visual documentaries or films.
The code appeared to be counter to a number of ministerial assurances that were given when the Communications Bill was going through Parliament. If amendments had not been withdrawn legislation would have been far more prescriptive. Ofcom should examine Hansard and ensure that it fulfils those assurances.
On targets for audio description there should be 'front loading', ie higher targets earlier on.
Repeats should be excluded from targets on audio description given that the current targets were so low.
The code should make specific reference to deafblind people.
The code should cover text on screen in general, eg captions that identify speakers or phone numbers.
Shopping channels should not be exempt from access services.
The UK could learn from the United States, where there was an obligation by January 2006 to have subtitling on 100% of all programmes made since 1998. There was a lower target for programmes made before 1998, eg 30%.
There was a thriving caption market in the USA and Ofcom should take steps to encourage collaboration with other countries, including the repurposing of subtitles in US content for broadcasting in the UK.
Broadcasters should be encouraged to provide an extra video stream for signing.
There should be one Level of requirement for subtitling and not three as proposed in the draft code.
The availability of access services on programmes should be widely advertised ahead of broadcast.
The cost of access services may have fallen but it was not clear whether the quality of the subtitling etc had been maintained. Lower costs are extremely helpful in ensuring greater access, and this need not be at the cost of quality.
Regulation of access services should not stifle technical developments.
Ofcom should take steps to ensure that broadcasters adhere to the code.
Ofcom should take account of the new Disability Discrimination Bill in its deliberations.
A simple code would be easier to administer and monitor.
Many of the issues raised were matters of evidence and the timing of evidence. It would be a matter of establishing that the right framework and evidence could be taken into account, as it emerged to inform the code.
A case could be made to provide a subsidy to smaller broadcasters.
EPGs should display access services that are available.

6.3 Peter Bourton responded to a number of the points raised. Ofcom acknowledged that costs had changed and Ofcom had gone back to service providers and requested current quotations. It was not clear to what extent broadcasters could take advantage of lower costs since some may be locked into existing contracts. On interim targets Ofcom accepted that there could be a case for more targets. Ofcom's approach did not replicate that of the ITC because of concerns about burdens on new broadcasters. The ITC regulated relatively wealthy public service broadcasters whilst Ofcom proposed to include less well funded satellite and cable channels. Ofcom was required to adopt a proportionate regulatory stance and had this in mind when interim targets were proposed. Some broadcasters provided subtitling on a voluntary basis, as they saw the commercial benefit of doing so. That situation was not expected to change but Ofcom would monitor the position. With technical developments the code would be subject to periodic review.

6.4 Members discussed what the Committee's advice should be to the Ofcom Board and the Content Board. It was agreed that it should be in the form of recommendations in the minutes. In summary the Committee's advice and recommendations to the Board on the draft code on providing television access services were:

Recommendation 1: Annual targets
The annual targets for the five PSB channels should continue as planned and there should be biannual targets for the digital channels that were being required to provide services for the first time, in years 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10. As ten-year targets for audio description were only 10%, these should be 'front loaded' or 'rebalanced' to require provision of a higher proportion of accessible programmes in the early years. The Committee would like to see Parliament revisit these targets given advances in technology since the Communications Act was passed. Broadcasters that could not afford to meet the full range of targets should nevertheless be encouraged to take steps to improve access.
Recommendation 2: Costs
Ofcom should take full account of the current costs of access services when it redrafts the initial code. The Committee expected that this would increase the number of channels required to provide services.
Recommendation 3: Parliament
When drafting the code Ofcom should take account of all the assurances given by Ministers when certain prescriptive recommendations were withdrawn during the passage of the Communications Bill. The code should be broadly in line with Parliament's expectations.
Recommendation 4: Scheduling of accessible programmes
There should be greater access to programmes with subtitling, signing and audio description at peak times. The Committee was aware that peak times could differ from channel to channel. A significant number of older and disabled people were at home and watched television during the day. The focus on peak viewing should not be at the exclusion of other broadcasts and broadcasters should be sensitive to the access requirements of people who watched their programmes at different times of the day.
Recommendation 5: People with dual sensory impairment
The code should make specific reference to deafblind people to signal that it was a distinctive disability with particular access requirements.

6.5 Kevin Carey would report orally the Committee's views to the Content Board at its meeting on 11 May 2004. He would report back on the reaction of the Content Board. When the code is submitted to the Content Board and the main Board for approval in June the minutes of the Committee's meeting would be available. It was agreed that members would be consulted on the wording of the Committee's recommendations. Members would expect Ofcom to provide the Committee with evidence on a regular basis to show that progress was being made on access services.

AP1 Committee recommendations on access services to be copied to members for comment.

6.6 It was agreed that a full discussion of Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) should be postponed to the next meeting, since it required much more careful consideration and there was insufficient time. (The committee were advised that the Ofcom timescales allowed for this short delay) EPGs provided programme listings and were also a means to access channels. Ofcom was required to formulate a code, to require EPGs to be accessible to people with disabilities to the extent practicable. Two issues were raised briefly: the steps that should be taken to encourage development of EPGs, eg an approach to News Corporation whose Sky EPG has been developed by NDS, another News Corporation subsidiary; and the current complexity of accessing subtitles on Sky and the need for a single button.

7. Members' suggestions for future business

7.1 The Chairman asked members to submit suggestions for future business to Bradley Brady. These would be considered for agendas alongside items required by Ofcom's Annual Plan. At the July meeting members would receive a Committee forward work programme for discussion and agreement.

AP2 Members to email Bradley Brady with suggestions for future business - by the end of May.

8. Dates for future meetings

8.1 It was agreed that meetings for the next year would be on 19 July 2004, 13 October 2004 and 25 January 2005. Meetings would begin at 11 am and not 12.00 Noon as this time, in order to give more time for what are anticipated to be, heavy agendas.

9. AOB

9.1 The issue of support to members to attend meetings with stakeholders was raised. Ofcom would not be able to provide extensive support but could provide advice by telephone or by email. Members were asked to return relevant forms to ensure that they received remuneration via the Ofcom payroll. They were also requested to complete and return a declaration of interests form. Members agreed to share their email addresses. At future meetings 'Review of meeting' would be a short standing agenda item.

AP3 Members to complete forms as soon as possible and return them to David Edwards.

AP4 A members email list to be circulated by David Edwards