HC Deb 07 March 1956 vol 549 cc2094-6
21. Mr. Ness Edwards

asked the Postmaster-General what consultations were held with the Independent Television Authority under Section 4 (5) of the 1954 Act in regard to the proposed method of advertising, whereby advertisers will be able to state the programme and the part of the programme with which their products shall be associated; and what directions he has issued under Section 4 (5), in view of the fact that the proposal constitutes a breach of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act.

Dr. Hill

None, Sir. There is nothing in the Act to prevent the fixed time booking of advertisements, so long as Section 4 (6) on sponsoring is observed. A proviso to Section 4 (6) recognises that advertisements may be included in programmes to which they are related in subject matter. The Independent Television Authority is bound under Section 4 (3) to ensure that programme companies comply with Rule 1 of the Second Schedule, and Section 4 (5) does not empower me to issue directions on this point.

Mr. Ness Edwards

As the commercial companies are already announcing that they will permit thirteen weeks' block bookings, fixing the spot at which the plugs will occur, and in view of the obvious influence upon the type of programme which such block bookings have, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that his advertising rules are tightened up, and that he himself accepts responsibility for sponsoring?

Dr. Hill

The advertising rules to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are specifically stated in the Act. There is nothing in the Act to prohibit fixed-time booking or block booking. What is prohibited under Section 4 (6) of the Act is sponsoring. If the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else has complaints to make or allegations to put forward about the issue of sponsoring within the meaning of Section 4 (6), I will, of course, see that they are investigated, but the aspects of advertising to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are not of themselves precluded by the Act provided that there is no breach of Section 4 (6).

Mr. Fell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these Questions about the I.T.A. arise from the fact that the I.T.A. has so far been extraordinarily successful? Will he take courage from the fact that the people who can receive both programmes will back him all the way through in the support which he gives to I.T.A.?

Dr. Hill

My rôle is not to support the I.T.A. or the B.B.C., but to see that the Act is fully carried out.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when advertising is associated over a long period with programmes which are known beforehand, that in itself is bound to affect the nature of the programme? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Unless the nature of the programme is disclosed thirteen weeks' beforehand, how can the advertiser select his spot? Is not the right hon. Gentleman in this case under an obligation to carry out the undertakings given by his predecessor that there shall be no sponsoring?

Dr. Hill

I readily agree that it is conceivable that a prolonged association between a certain advertisement and a certain programme would be in conflict with that part of the definition of sponsoring which, to paraphrase it, refers to there appearing to be a relationship between the two. I am fully alive to that. The announcement or newspaper report which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind clearly indicated that the I.T.A. was also fully alive to that point.