OFCOM's STANDARDS CODE (Hansard, 14 July 2003)

§ Tessa Jowell
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 116 and the motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 and Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118.

§ Tessa Jowell
With amendment No. 115, I will also speak to Government amendments (a) to (e), which are offered in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116, and to Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118. It may be helpful if I indicate that I propose that the House agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 117 and 118.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 would have the effect of narrowing the scope of the code regulating broadcast advertising. At present, the ITC and Radio Authority codes can cover any matter governing standards in broadcast advertising. Those codes are developed after consultation and cover matters that are to be regulated under domestic or European law and other matters of public policy relating to broadcast advertising. The Lords amendments would limit the scope of the broadcast advertising codes to matters that may be misleading, harmful or offensive. We accept the 97 "misleading, harmful or offensive" formulation introduced in the Lords amendment. However, some of the matters that are regulated by way of the current codes, and which will need to continue to be regulated, appear to fall outside the scope of that amendment. We have identified two specific areas where we believe that there must be a proper basis for the inclusion of these additional matters in the code. They are the continuation of the ban on political advertising, which has widespread support in the House, and the discharge of the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Government amendments would make those matters standards objectives in their own right, regulated by the code, and include them in the aspects of clause 314 that relate to advertisement and sponsorship.
Lords amendment No. 116 would apply the standards objective for the protection of children to the provisions of clause 314 on advertisement and sponsorship. Our amendments in lieu would not overturn that, but that is an exception to our overall approach. The general framework of clause 314(1) is designed to pick out the provisions in the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising.

§ Michael Fabricant
The Secretary of State mentioned the codes for children and for political advertising. However, she has not mentioned the code that controls the way in which a crime is depicted in an advert. It is part of the codes of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission that the perpetrator is always caught. One can see that in such advertisements. Do the amendments mean that the codes will be outside the scope of the Bill?

§ Tessa Jowell
Perhaps I can revert to the hon. Gentleman's point later. I shall continue to set out the case and logic for our amendments. As I said, the general framework in clause 314(1) will pick out aspects of the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising rather than including the other standards in clause 312, which apply to other sorts of programmes as well as advertising. All the standards objectives in clause 312 apply to television, radio programmes and advertisements when they are relevant.
Let us consider amendments Nos. 117 and 118. The simpler of the two, amendment No. 118, rectifies the omission of referendum broadcasts, to which equivalent provisions to those for party political broadcasts apply. I expect cries of delight from the Opposition Benches.
Amendment No. 117 clarifies clause 314(7). It rectifies a weakness in the Bill's drafting, which has been discussed and came to light in proceedings on an appeal to the Appellate Committee. The interpretation of the provisions appeared likely to cause argument. The appeal was by the BBC against the Court of Appeal judgment that its refusal to broadcast the ProLife Alliance's party election broadcast in 2001 was unlawful. The Department was informed that an argument had been advanced that the draft Bill precluded the application of standards, especially those of taste and decency, to party political broadcasts. It was argued that a party political broadcast need not comply with the standards set by Ofcom under what is now clause 302 because clause 314(7) meant that 98 transmission could not be prohibited on the grounds of standards. Such a change of policy was not the Government's intention and the Appellate Committee was informed of that. The amendments put the position beyond doubt: the standards objectives apply to all broadcast material.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that all the objectives in clause 312(2) apply to all programmes, including advertisements.

§ Mr. Whittingdale
Once again, the steam has gone out of the issue and the Government have proposed an acceptable formula. As the Secretary of State knows, there was genuine concern that the word "unsuitable" was vague and capable of several different interpretations. That contrasted greatly with the existing wording in the codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority, of "misleading, harmful or offensive". It was not clear why the Government wanted to substitute "unsuitable" for the existing wording, and it caused the industry anxiety. However, after the vote in the House of Lords, the Government have tabled an amendment that is acceptable to the industry. We do not therefore wish to oppose the amendment.
On the other two amendments that the Secretary of State has tabled, I was delighted to hear that the ban on political advertising will also take into account a ban on advertising in any future referendum campaign. She was careful not to say when such a ban might have to be used, but I trust that it will not be for some considerable time. On that basis, I have no further comments.