Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Apr 2009

TV Access and Social Inclusion: Discussion with TV Access.

The joint committee has invited representatives from the Disability Federation of Ireland to discuss the technical requirements and social inclusion issues pertaining to the accessibility of digital terrestrial television with regard to people with disabilities, older people and those experiencing poverty. I welcome the following: Ms Joan O'Donnell, support officer, Disability Federation of Ireland; Dr. Mark Magennis, director of the centre of inclusive technology at the National Council for the Blind; and Mr. John-Mark McCafferty, head of social justice and policy, Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

I advise witnesses that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Dr. Magennis to commence the presentation.

Dr. Mark Magennis

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for inviting us to make this presentation. The submission is made on behalf of a coalition of organisations, known as TV Access, which is drawn from across the disability, ageing and poverty sectors. The slide lists the organisations involved in the coalition, which includes the main organisations in the sector. The Disability Federation of Ireland is represented by Ms Joan O'Donnell, I represent the National Council of the Blind and Mr. John-Mark McCafferty represents the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Other members of the coalition include Age Action Ireland, DeafHear, the Irish Deaf Society, the Irish Hard of Hearing Association, the Visually Impaired Computer Society, the Central Remedial Clinic and People with Disabilities in Ireland.

I will set the scene by making a couple of quotations. A European Parliament resolution on the audiovisual media services directive states:

Access to television is a fundamental right. Television is vital in defining the cultural landscape of modern societies and provides a primary source of information, education and entertainment. The audiovisual sector is of fundamental importance for democracy, freedom of expression and cultural pluralism.

Last year, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, stated:

For digital television to succeed as a replacement for the analogue services it needs to be accessible to all. It must be simple to set up and user friendly, offer more high quality services and channels and the receiver equipment must be affordable".

The TV Access coalition is concerned about accessibility and affordability. There are several ways in which digital television, when it replaces the analogue service, could be inaccessible and unaffordable to a large number of people. For example, it will be inaccessible if programming does not include subtitles, sign language and audio description. Collectively known as access services, these features are essential for the proper understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are blind, partially sighted, deaf or hard of hearing. A second threat is the possibility that consumer equipment, namely, digital set-top boxes and remote controls will be inaccessible.

The third issue concerns practical difficulties with making the switch to digital. A number of people, particularly older people, are very reluctant to adopt new technology because it is very difficult for them. There are practical difficulties such as getting the equipment out of the box, plugging it in the correct way, getting it to work, learning to use the remote control and all the new menu services and things like that.

The fourth issue is the cost of switching. Some particularly vulnerable people will have extra costs involved in switching to digital, over and above just buying a set top box. Some set top boxes will not work with older televisions. Some people will find they will need a new television aerial because their aerial cannot pick up the digital signal even though it picked up the analogue signal. People with, for instance, a vision impairment may find they need a set-top box with a text-to-speech capability that will read out the menus, otherwise they cannot use it, and this may cost extra.

There are two basic issues I want to talk about. The first is social inclusion for people with disabilities and older people. The second, which is very relevant today and something we really want to stress, are financial implications for Government. Like all information technologies there is potential for major savings in using them and potential for cost if they are not accessible to older people.

The social inclusion issue is summed up by the first quote I gave the committee from the European Parliament which states, "Television provides a primary source of information, education and entertainment and is of fundamental importance for democracy, freedom of expression and cultural pluralism". If one is excluded from television by dint of it being inaccessible or unaffordable then one is socially excluded from information, education and democracy.

There are several parts to the financial implications which I want to outline for the committee. The first is the simple matter that social exclusion tends to incur costs for the country in terms of supporting people who are more dependent on welfare, health services and that kind of thing. The reduced economic participation by people who are socially excluded reduces the GNP of the country.

The second issue concerns service delivery. Digital television will become a prime service delivery channel. The committee may be aware of a service in the UK called NHS Direct. The National Health Service in the UK found it was spending significant amounts of money on people visiting GPs when they did not need to. If such people had received some basic health information and advice they would not have had to go to a doctor at all. The NHS set up what was originally a telephone helpline which had trained operators which would give very basic health advice. It found it cut down the number of GP visits quite considerably and saved a great deal of money.

It has since put this service on the internet and on digital television because digital television, for many people, is a very easy mechanism to go and get information from. Not everybody wants to use a computer and the internet. It is now available on freeview and Sky by pressing the red button. This is the kind of thing we will see in the future where digital television becomes a channel for these types of services.

The cost savings from doing things in this way are absolutely enormous. A report during the Irish presidency of the EU in 2004 cited research to say the relative costs for Government of doing transactions with citizens by traditional paper channels where letters and forms went backwards and forwards compared to call centres and digital self-service was 100:10:1. The implications of this are that if people cannot access the digital self-service channels through, for instance, digital television, services such as health information or welfare services will have to be delivered through another channel which will cost ten times or 100 times as much. This is the raison d’être for e-Government.

I will summarise what we would see as the inclusion goals for digital television. We would like a situation where everybody is prepared for and able to make the transition from analogue to digital television. We would like fully accessible consumer equipment to be available at an affordable price to anybody who needs it. We would like all programmes to include access services, including subtitles, audio description and sign language. We would like to see the needs of older people and people with disabilities taken into account in all future services. In other words, we seek representation so that their needs and interests can be factored into the decisions made when new services are developed.

We have four recommendations to put to the committee. First, we would like the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to collaborate with us in planning and implementing a switch off awareness campaign and a switch over assistance campaign. In the United Kingdom, the authorities have set aside £600 million for this purpose, with agents travelling the country in vans informing people about the switch off. We accept that funding on that scale will not be allocated in the State. The Department has indicated that it would like, as much as possible, for information to be disseminated through community groups and representative organisations such as ours. We look forward to this collaboration. We must start planning for it as soon as possible so that we can ensure everybody is prepared and that nobody experiences problems in 2012.

Our second recommendation is that the Department convene a digital Ireland stakeholder group as soon as possible. This would comprise representatives of the Government, broadcasters, disability, ageing and poverty groups, manufacturers and regulators. We must sit down together to discuss this issue as a matter of priority so that we can plan effectively for it and make sure it is done as efficiently as possible. Accessibility and affordability should be top of the agenda.

Third, we would like RTE to include accessibility within the minimum receiver requirements for digital terrestrial television. The current requirements hardly mention accessibility or usability features. There is not even a stipulation that remote controls should be easy to use, which is a basic consideration. Other such basic requirements include the ability of set-top boxes to provide audio descriptions as well as subtitles and the display of on-screen text in a clear fashion. These issues should be included in the requirements. In the United Kingdom, one can purchase a set top box with built-in audio description facility in Argos for less than £15. This must be a minimum provision.

Members may already be aware of our fourth recommendation because we circulated information in this regard last year. We would like the Broadcasting Bill 2008 to include a guarantee of effective representation for older people and people with disabilities. If we are not at the table, we cannot influence decisions for the good of everybody — Government and citizens. We seek effective representation on the broadcasting authority of Ireland, the RTE and TG4 boards and the audience councils. Currently, the Bill "allows for" representation of people with disabilities but does not guarantee it. There is no provision for the representation of older people. I thank Deputy McManus for raising these issues in this committee last year.

If these four recommendations are adopted, the objective set out by the Minister, Deputy Ryan, last year will be achieved, that is, digital television will succeed as a replacement for analogue services because it will be accessible to all, simple to set up, user friendly and the receiver equipment will be affordable. That is our goal.

I thank the delegates for attending the meeting. As each of us gets older, we begin to appreciate what a good idea it is that technology should be accessible and easier to fathom.

It is timely that the witnesses are here as we are about to go into Report Stage of the Broadcasting Bill. I hope we will have an opportunity to make representations to the Minister about these issues. To be fair to him, he is very open to accommodating older people and those with disabilities. The concern is cost. One of the difficulties with the changeover to DTT is that nobody is really in charge of the project. From that point of view I would be concerned that the public awareness mentioned here will not be properly developed and people will not be assisted in the way that is needed to make sure the benefits of DTT are fully realised.

The witnesses have covered many of the issues that were of concern to me, but there is one other thing I will mention. I have come across people who have put up a satellite dish that enables them to access television without going through Sky or any other company. They just have the dish and, as a consequence, they do not have any Irish television service. For somebody on a low income this is very attractive because there is no ongoing cost. I have some concerns about this because it seems elderly people are being targeted by companies who are putting up these dishes. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on that.

I welcome the witnesses. If we are to succeed in being inclusive, it is exactly practical measures such as these that must be taken on board. I want to alert the witnesses to a particular issue my party has been instrumental in pursuing. The Irish diaspora were promised a service by RTE, but when the economic downturn occurred, even though it was a requirement for RTE, it simply said it could not fulfil it. That is my greatest worry in terms of the economic situation — that people who are not powerful will be seen as expendable. I support the witnesses in every way I can.

I do not want the witnesses to take this the wrong way, but I found the presentation a little patronising at the beginning in the context of the Older and Bolder campaign, which I think is fantastic. I do not think older people are any less skilled than middle-aged people in terms of dealing with technology. In fact, the death of technology comes from what I call the M&Ms — middle aged males — who are afraid of keyboards, generally speaking. I do not like this attitude and I would like the witnesses to reply in this regard.

In the breakdown of costs, I would like to know how the ratio of 100:10:1 in the cost of service provision would be reflected in terms of usage by different age groups, although the witnesses may not have this information. Elderly people are well able to book their Ryanair flights using technology. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that.

I would like to develop on what Deputy McManus said about people having free television through their own dishes for a small amount of money — €100 or €150. They can have everything, as the Deputy said, except RTE. There are copyright reasons for this. The way this is being dealt with in the UK is that one simply gets a free viewing card, known as a Freesat card, as long as one lives within the jurisdiction. Of the boxes and satellite dishes mentioned by Deputy McManus, 90% of them have a card slot which allows a person to put in a card to get BBC1, 2, 3 and 4, ITV1, 2, 3, 4, and a host of other free channels, especially news channels, which tend to be popular with older people. Part of the focus should be on the development of such a card in Ireland so that people in Ireland can have the same level of access as British people.

Dr. Magennis mentioned that people with special needs should be represented, as contemplated by the legislation, on the various boards which are to be set up under the Act. A variety of interests will require representation; many more than there are places on boards. I would like to hear Dr. Magennis tease out this problem because it is one this committee will soon have to grapple with. How can this difficulty be dealt with?

I apologise for being late.

Should we set hard and fast targets in law for captioning and audio description? Four or five years ago I published draft legislation based on the Canadian model of setting captioning targets to be achieved by all broadcasters over a period. My proposal would have required broadcasters eventually to meet targets of between 95% and 97% of all programming. There is a reason it cannot be 100%. Should that approach be adopted in the Broadcasting Bill? We had a brief discussion on this point while debating committee stage of the Bill. There are several positive elements in the Bill, in particular requiring RTE to map out how it will improve access in a series of ways. However, it does not set targets RTE is legally obliged to meet. At a time when it is difficult to raise money through advertising, RTE and TV3 are in the process of cutting costs. We want to ensure that services which cost broadcasters money, such as captioning and audio description, remain a priority rather than an easy area in which to make savings.

One of my amendments to the Broadcasting Bill proposed that representation of disabled people on boards, rather than being a requirement, should be a factor in choosing board members. I understand this committee may have a role in recommending some board members to the Minister. Representation of people with disabilities is something we should look at, depending on the ministerial appointees to the board.

The switch-off awareness campaign is essential because the vast majority of people have no idea what digital television is, what it can provide and how it works. In Carrigaline, where I live, people are losing RTE and TV3 coverage because of interference caused by digital testing in the area. We are told by RTE that they cannot do anything about this. The fact that members of the community did not know what digital television was when I began to talk to them about it is a concern. Preparing people for the switch over to digital television is a major job and there is not a great deal of money available to provide for that. Perhaps we could learn from Bord Gáis on that score. There is no understanding of the technical assistance that will be required in terms of the new box systems that will have to be put in place in people's homes and so on. I would be interested to hear the delegates' views as to how that campaign should function in a practical sense.

I had three questions, which have already been asked by Senator O'Toole and Deputy Coveney. I will not repeat them, but I take this opportunity to thank the delegates for their presentation and for attending. Their contribution was interesting. This is an area we all need to get our heads around and on which we need to focus. I met the delegates previously. My background is in the disability sector. If they were not there to highlight the issues they raised concerning digital television, particularly those relating to disability, we might only get to deal with them too late in the day to address them in any practical sense. It is timely that they raised them now. I congratulate them on being organised, for having highlighted these issues for a long period and now in such a timely fashion that we will not have to play catch up.

Dr. Mark Magennis

Deputy McManus raised the question of targeting elderly people and I will leave addressing it in case she returns. Regarding Senator O'Toole's question, I apologise for giving the impression that elderly people are——

There is no need for an apology. It was just a point I made.

Dr. Mark Magennis

If I may, I will pass that question to my colleague.

Ms Joan O’Donnell

I was delighted to hear the Senator is an advocate for the Older and Bolder campaign.

Ms Joan O’Donnell

I take the meaning behind the Senator's point quite seriously. There has always been discord between disability and aging in public and social policy and a view of aging being chronological when it is economic, educational and many other factors are involved. However, we have a mythical 65 age delineation with siloed funding under which we operate.

To put matters in focus, the Disability Federation of Ireland is an umbrella body of disability organisations. We represent more than 100 organisations, primarily from the physical and sensory sector but stretching into the areas of mental health, intellectual disability, hidden disabilities and so on. While the census indicates that, say, 9.3% of the population have a disability, the supplementary 2006 disability survey suggests that figure is closer to 18% of the population. We note in older age groups that in addition to some of the social inclusion issues that affect certain sectors of the population, there is a higher incidence of disability, particularly sensory disabilities. People tend to become hard of hearing, which can be age-related. The development of visual impairment is more heavily loaded among those in older age groups. We must bear in mind that there is complex constellation of issues that can combine to affect older populations. This means we need to seriously ensure in a positive way that older people are included and not left out of the equation when the switchover to digital television happens. The same applies to people with disabilities and there are also conditions such as arthritis and so on to be considered because, based on CSO figures, 42% of the disabled population is over the age of 65.

We are looking at this as a broad social inclusion issue and we do not want to be disrespectful to our older population. Perhaps my colleagues might want to add something in that regard.

I feel bad now. That was not my intention.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

Perhaps we should give a few pointers from the viewpoint of SVP and then field a number of those questions. I am a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the whole digital television switch over is of great concern to us. The committee may know that the SVP is involved in this campaign because of its role within local communities across Ireland. To go back to the Senator's point, the majority of our membership, who are very active citizens, are older people. They are out there working with younger people as well as people their own age and older than themselves. Without trying to teach my granny to suck eggs, there is a continuum of people there who are very active, both as regards advocacy and on the service delivery and conference visitation side of things.

One of the key reasons we got involved was that early last year RTE approached the SVP and said medium wave would be switched off and henceforth everything would be on FM and long wave. It wanted to know how it could work with us to ensure that some of the people we assist, particularly the more socially isolated, could be facilitated. For the most part it was a matter of simply switching the dial on the radio that people already had, which would have been caked in dust at the corner of the kitchen to access FM or long wave. In a sense the process we are involved in now is around the issue of facilitating some of the most vulnerable people, individuals and households, so that they are not left behind. It is our concern as Ms O'Donnell and Dr. Magennis as well as Deputies and Senators have mentioned, that in the downturn this will be a soft target and not be made a priority. In essence we are talking about the role of television as well as online and digital services as a social inclusion mechanism, not just in terms of tackling loneliness and isolation, but also the scope it has, for example, in terms of the example from the NHS.

In that regard it was the broadcaster, as provider, that approached the SVP to find out how it could work in partnership with us. That was because RTE was making the call as regards shutting down the medium waveband. As it happened, it worked out really well. We were able to work with RTE and identify areas of need around the country. RTE provided radios and the SVP provided information to conferences, especially to people along the western seaboard. I am not sure exactly why, but it was predominantly a western seaboard exercise. The point is that we need to start early. We need to have some type of partnership between the voluntary organisations here and the statutory agencies. People need to know that the switch over is happening. In particular I take Deputy McManus's point on leadership. Leadership in this area is key because, in a sense, this falls between the stools. One has broadcasting and technology change which is usually in the realm of the private sector or a large State organisation whose main remit is looking at broad audience figures, then one has the social inclusion concerns which we have in terms of poverty, isolation and disability. It is not that the twain do not meet but they do not meet in the same way as other things such as payments and access to services do in regard to, say, the welfare state. That is why we are trying to get in ahead of the curve and to emphasise the connections between both the technology change and the implications for a variety of different people.

People need to know about the switchover, how to switch and, as Dr. Magennis said, to make the switch. There are two elements to that. There is the personal capability to make the switch. Some people might not be in a position to get hold of the equipment or to get a sense of what one must do to get a set-top box. There are also the financial implications. The Senator mentioned €120 which strikes me as quite expensive for a set-top box compared with the cost in other jurisdictions.

That is with a card slot. One must have a card slot to get RTE which is the crucial issue, otherwise one must pay Sky. That is the difficulty.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I would argue that is still quite expensive for a set-top box compared with the cost in other jurisdictions. It will be slightly more expensive because of the economies of scale with which we are dealing. It will be an income concern, especially for an older person living alone. That would be a concern for us.

The Senator raised a key point for us. We have a concern where people opt for packages which do not include the national broadcaster. The national broadcaster fulfils a public service and an information provision role. We would be concerned if the public service broadcaster is not being accessed by people. Another significant concern for us is if vulnerable people in low income households are choosing to access the dish as a cheaper low-maintenance option.

It cannot be left purely for the market to decide. At the same time, it cannot be left purely to voluntary organisations to pick up the slack on this in terms of information provision and linking in with vulnerable consumers.

It is important for the organisations to be aware that we have raised with RTE the fact that its contract with Sky is coming to a conclusion this year and that we do not want this to happen again. It would be helpful if other people said the same because it is not listening to us.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

It is another voice. We want to play our part. "Partnership" is probably a dirty word——

It is a great word.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I make my living out of it. The key is a national partnership, whether a steering group between statutory and voluntary bodies and at a local level in terms of the HSE, local authorities and the voluntary organisations, which have made the input here. In trying to make that input, I was attempting to answer some of the questions raised.

I am not a member of this committee but I wanted to come along because I very much support the delegation's aims, what it is doing and what it is promoting. As we all know, we live at a time when the social inclusion agenda could be at considerable risk because of the hard choices that face us as an economy and the importance of access to television as a fundamental right, as a necessity for a healthy democracy and for the participation of the maximum number of citizens. That has been well said in the quotations included in the presentation which, unfortunately, I missed. I was very taken by Senator O'Toole's point about older persons and with Ms O'Donnell's answer. When talking about older persons and access to services and change, it is similar for persons with disability. There is a spectrum of competence here. When the Broadcasting Bill was before the Seanad I tabled an amendment, which Senator O'Toole kindly supported, calling for the introduction of a heritage channel among the suite of programmes. The idea of a heritage channel came from my visiting nursing homes and meeting many older people who were not experiencing a television diet that was suited to their needs. Senator O'Toole rightly made the point that we should be careful about being too prescriptive or generalising too much about where older people's viewing tastes and needs lay. Some people are very happy to flick between channels and other older people are not in a position to select a channel, which is particularly true for those in nursing homes. We need to deal with that spectrum of competence. Senator O'Toole is only an older person to me in the sense that he is older than I am by a number of years. He is technologically far more competent as everyone can see. He has podcasting on his website and I am just learning what podcasting is.

The point is that we are dealing with a spectrum of competence. However, change is undeniably harder to deal with in general terms as people get older. For that reason it is worth being conscious of the needs of older members of our society. I have no doubt that among people with disabilities there are people who are perfectly fit to cope with all the change that is coming but others, whom the witnesses are taking into account, will need to be remembered at this time. I commend the witnesses in what they are doing and saying.

Dr. Mark Magennis

I will return to the issue of free view, etc. There are a number of issues in this. There is an almost bewildering array of choices and technologies. Our basic stance is that free-to-air, public service broadcasting must remain accessible and affordable to everybody. That is the bottom line. That will be digital terrestrial television. Beyond that we would also like to see increased accessibility in all the other choices including the Skys and the UPCs, the free views and the free sats because that enables people to have choice. Older people and people with disabilities would like as much choice as everybody else.

Deputy McManus spoke about elderly people being sold satellite receivers that are not capable of receiving RTE channels. This is an issue and it has happened in the UK. Certain operators are very smart. When there is a transition coming — this happened with the UK switchover — the operators see an opportunity. It is a genuine business opportunity for them. What has been found in the UK is that some people at switchover time have decided to select Sky. As they need to switch anyway they might decide that Sky looks good and go with that. There is a danger that some people will be choosing a service like Sky without having enough information about the digital terrestrial service that is available. That comes down to the awareness campaign and how important it is to stop people accidentally spending money on something they do not want when they could be getting something they do want for free.

Deputy Coveney spoke about targets in law for the access services of subtitling, audio description and sign language. I am not entirely sure what the situation is. We have the access rules from the BCI. As far as I understand it, they do not have the force of law. Based on the amount of subtitling provided by RTE and other channels, some of them are falling short of the quotas they are supposed to be reaching.

Deputy Coveney made the point that they are not required by legislation to reach a threshold that we would believe is attractive and necessary. The most technologically advanced channel is TG4 because it has done what it takes to do this. The point he made is that something similar should be available via the main RTE stations. The last time I checked, it was not available.

Dr. Mark Magennis

The question is whether the BCI rules are enough. In the UK, it is by law. Nearly all of the UK stations exceed their quotas. At least half the stations exceed the quotas by up to double.

The French stations are the same.

Dr. Mark Magennis

It would be interesting to analyse why this is happening and whether it will happen in Ireland. I am not convinced we necessarily need law but we need some kind of effective mechanism, whatever that is, to make sure the quotas are the right quotas and that they are reached. We would like to see quality standards with these quotas as well. We are finding, even in the United States, that with the switch to digital, this is getting even worse. For example, the quality of subtitles is sometimes so low that one cannot watch them. There are either glitches where the subtitles disappear halfway through the programme, or two lines are written one on top of the other, or they are half off the screen, or what they have decided to subtitle is wrong and does not represent the programme content properly. We would like to see quality standards for the active services.

The other question concerned representation.

Dr. Mark Magennis

It is true that everybody would like to be on the boards. Our issue with representation — my colleague might back me up on this — is that at present the wording of the Bill states that capacity and matters pertaining to disability is sufficient qualification to be on these various bodies. There are many people with disabilities, including older people, and depending on how it is measured, something like 10% and perhaps even 18% of people have a disability. For that reason, they should definitely be represented. However, older people are not mentioned at all and there is no capacity for experience in matters pertaining to older people in the wording of the Bill.

The other point is that it does not mention that these people who have the experience of disability, and older people, should also have experience or capacity in matters pertaining to broadcasting. Otherwise, it often happens with representation that somebody represents the disability sector but that person does not really have enough grasp of the issues he or she is supposedly representing it about, which can be quite technical, so it is not effective representation. In that case, it can basically amount to tokenism, about which we are very concerned. The wording of the Bill should be strengthened in this regard.

It would be very helpful if we received correspondence from the group making the latter point that it is not a single issue with regard to representation, and that it needs to be a person who can bridge several different areas.

Dr. Mark Magennis

We made a submission last year. I will send a copy to the committee.

Ms Joan O’Donnell

I want to pick up on Deputy Coveney's point welcoming an information campaign and referring to how it should be conducted. As Dr. Magennis mentioned it, I am loath to mention the social partnership process again. In the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, under the section on disabilities, there is a commitment in the high level goals that people with disabilities will be included and should have access to all kinds of information. I wanted to add this point in conjunction with Dr. Magennis' quotation on the European Parliament resolution in his presentation.

There is a huge Government commitment towards the inclusion of people with disabilities, which would include a great number of socially excluded and older people. We would see that the information campaign needs to be inclusive and needs to involve the NGOs working in this sector. We are very keen in this regard.

There are clear reasons we are here and in a timely fashion. We understood that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was contemplating commencing an information campaign around the switchover in March 2009. It now appears this will not happen given the current economic climate, which is understandable. The intention is to include the disability, social inclusion and elderly sectors. We recommend that this be done through the social partnership process.

We believe this to be an interdepartmental issue. Dr. Magennis has given the cost benefits to Britain of being able to provide health information on channels. In this regard, the NHS is using digital television to broadcast health information resulting in a huge cost benefit to the Government. We are trying to come up with solutions, to stay positive and contribute positively to the switchover and to ensure this is done in as cost-effective a manner as possible. That being said, we believe the voluntary sector will need to be supported and resourced in terms of any roll-out information campaign. This is being done through some pilot projects in, for example, Scottish border regions. We can furnish the committee with information in this regard.

As regards the interdepartmental element, the HSE and Department of Social and Family Affairs would need to be involved. There are a number of stakeholders involved beyond the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We believe it would be within this sphere's remit to pull in the others, if appropriate.

Dr. Mark Magennis

Perhaps I could pick up on a point made earlier. I mentioned that I believe that digital television will prove an ideal channel for the distribution of a great deal of Government information and services. The word "convergence" is perhaps one people have heard a number of times. There is a huge convergence of digital television, mobile services and the Internet. They are all coming together in one space. What emerges will be the channels through which Government and businesses deal with people and how people communicate with each other. The principles on which these channels operate will basically borrow best practice from what is currently the web, television and mobile services. We must get involved in this as early as possible and ensure that universal design, inclusivity, is a basic principle on which these matters are founded. Otherwise, a lack of inclusivity will find its way into future information society technologies, which will be of no benefit to anybody. Increasing e-inclusion will result in a win-win situation; everybody wins be they commercial service or product providers, the Government in terms of the public purse or individuals. I believe we should look at this from a broad prospective.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

Perhaps I can deal with a couple of the points raised. Obviously we believe this committee has a central relevance to this issue. However, we also believe it to be a social inclusion issue. We are asking that the committee approach and link up with the senior officials group for social inclusion to ensure this matter is considered in a communications and social inclusion context. The committee could also seek clarity from the parent Department in regard to what steps are proposed for access to the digital television switchover by vulnerable consumers. Both matters are important.

In terms of representation, we have already chosen as organisations to come together. The organisations involved have different backgrounds with different emphases on this issue. In a sense, we are a grouping with which the committee, the Department and the Office for Social Inclusion can communicate.

We are also conscious that through social partnership there is a community and voluntary pillar representation on the RTE audience council. This may be up for grabs through the legislation but I am not absolutely sure. There are a number of avenues. Partly it is about us as NGOs being able to put a cogent point to politicians and to other statutory mechanisms but equally it is about getting the right type of representation and the right links and the right partnerships at local level. Once this switch over starts to become manifest at regional or local level, it will be really important how we interact with the likes of the HSE, the local authorities and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We would be interested to know from the committee what further steps might be appropriate to progress this area.

I thank the delegates for their attendance this morning. They have given us food for thought. A transcript of today's meeting will be sent to the Minister for his observations.

The joint committee adjourned at 11 a.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 April 2009.
Barr
Roinn