HC Deb 22 June 1955 vol 542 cc1284-7
5. Mr. Ness Edwards

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make available to hon. Members a copy of the rules under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act, 1954, relating to periods of advertising in commercial television programmes.

Dr. Hill

The rules under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule relate to intervals between periods of advertising and not to the duration or number of advertising periods—the latter are proper to be settled under paragraph 2 of the Schedule. Paragraph 3 also deals with classes of broadcasts from which advertisements are barred. I have placed in the Library copies of the arrangements and rules made under both paragraphs.

6. Mr. Ness Edwards

asked the Postmaster-General whether advertising documentaries and shoppers' guides are excluded from the times allowed for advertising in the rules authorised by him for commercial television.

8. Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

asked the Postmaster-General why he has approved the exceeding of the limit of 10 per cent. of the total time allocated for advertising in commercial television programmes; and to what extent his regulations will allow this time limit to be exceeded by additional items described as advertising magazines and advertising features.

Dr. Hill

The I.T.A. has arranged that the amount of time given to advertising will not exceed six minutes an hour, averaged over the whole day's programmes, excluding shoppers' guides and advertising documentaries from the calculation. These arrangements do not fall within the scope of any rules I have to make under the Second Schedule.

Mr. Edwards

Is the Postmaster-General not aware that there is no provision whatever in the Act whereby advertising documentaries shall be excluded from the description of "advertisement"? Is he also aware that one of the companies today has announced that it will have a shopping documentary at 4 o'clock on Saturdays and another at 5.15? If one adds to this the six minutes also, it means that half the time will be taken up with advertising. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that, in view of the assurances which he has given?

Dr. Hill

In the second paragraph of the Second Schedule, to which the right hon. Member has referred, the responsibility is put upon the Authority to secure that the amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information. As matters stand, it seems that the Authority, conscious of its responsibilities, is doing its best to carry them out, and I suggest that until there is reason to suppose that the Authority is not carrying out its duty, we should give it our full confidence and allow it to continue its work.

Mr. Edwards

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Is he not aware that in the Act there is no provision for excluding advertisement documentaries from the description of advertising matter? Is he not aware of that, or is he conniving, as, apparently, the Assistant Postmaster-General said in the Adjournment debate, with the advertisers in breaking the Act of Parliament?

Dr. Hill

I am aware of the definition of "advertisement." There is no conniving. The present position was forecast by my hon. Friend in the debate in June last year, and it was given in an answer to a Question on 23rd March by the Economic Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Is the Postmaster-General aware that both the House and the public outside have been completely hoodwinked and misled by the Government into believing that 10 per cent. was to be the maximum time allowed for advertising, whereas, in fact, it is a minimum and the maximum might be anything. Even the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the maximum is.

Dr. Hill

It has been clearly explained to this House what the maximum is, and that, in that calculation, shoppers' guides and documentaries are excluded. There has been no doubt about the fact that this House has approved the Act and that the country has endorsed that decision.

Mr. Edwards

There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to lose his temper. Is it not the fact that the Act does not provide for excluding this form of advertisement? Why has he agreed to it?

Dr. Hill

There is nothing in the Act which prevents the inclusion of shoppers' guides and documentaries in the programmes to be provided. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's indignation is leading him into inaccuracies.

7. Mr. Ness Edwards

asked the Postmaster-General why, having regard to Section 3 (3) of the Television Act, 1954, he has approved paragraph 9 of the Principles for Television Advertising.

Dr. Hill

Paragraph 9 of the "Principles" is specifically limited to competitions allowable under Section 3 (3) of the Act, and I see no conflict between them.

Mr. Edwards

In view of the fact that the Act provides that no prizes or gifts of significant value may be offered on commercial television, is it with the knowledge of the Postmaster-General that the Associated Rediffusion company today advertises that it will provide big prizes? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any direction or advice as to what is the measure of "significant value"?

Dr. Hill

The right hon. Gentleman's Question relates to paragraph 9 of the Principles, which have been published. He will appreciate that paragraph 9 refers to advertisements allowable under Section 3 (3) of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of particular instances suggesting that the Act or this arrangement is to be broken, I shall be very glad to look into them.

Mr. Edwards

The right hon. Gentleman persists in misunderstanding me. Has he given any advice as to what is a prize or gift of significant value, as referred to in the Act? If not, perhaps he will tell us why one of the companies advertises that it is going to give big prizes.

Dr. Hill

The Independent Television Authority is the responsible body, which I am content to trust in this direction until there is reason to the contrary.

Mr. Edwards

If the right hon. Gentleman is content to leave it to the Authority, why did he put up the Assistant Postmaster-General last week to defend it and to speak on its behalf in this House?

Dr. Hill

Because it is customary for the Assistant Postmaster-General to reply to Adjournment debates on behalf of the Post Office.