Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
459-479)
MR GUY
PARKER AND
MS KATE
STROSS
2 JULY 2009
Q459 Chairman: I welcome you to the
fourth evidence session in our inquiry into alcohol. For the record
perhaps you would give us your names and the positions you currently
hold.
Ms Stross: I am
Kate Stross, director of content at Ofcom.
Mr Parker: I am Guy Parker, chief
executive of the Advertising Standards Authority.
Q460 Chairman: I put a general question
to both of you. Please explain your responsibilities in relation
to regulating the advertising of alcohol and the relationship
between your two different organisations?
Ms Stross: We regulate the whole
of the communications sector but as part of our regulation of
broadcasting we are responsible for regulating the content of
both programmes and advertising. In 2004 we devolved our regulatory
powers to a large extent to the Advertising Standards Authority
in relation to advertising, but Ofcom retains backstop powers
behind the ASA. We have the right to approve the codes relating
to broadcast advertising, impose sanctions should that be necessary
and retain an overall responsibility for regulating the amount
of advertising that can be seen on television.
Mr Parker: The ASA is responsible
for administering the rules that cover all advertising, broadcast
and non-broadcast. My colleague has just explained the broad co-regulatory
set up. The non-broadcast side is more of a self-regulatory set
up. We have been responsible for administering its code since
1962, so it is getting on for 50 years. The rules are written
by the industry in the form of the Committee of Advertising Practice
on the non-broadcast side and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising
Practice on the broadcast side. As to the latter the code is subject
to Ofcom approval. Last year we were responsible for assessing
and checking against the code 26,500 complaints involving about
15,500 cases. By "case" I mean a discrete ad or campaign.
As to alcohol, we received just short of 400 complaints about
advertising last year. Those complaints were not just about alleged
problems under the specific and strict alcohol rules; most were
complaints that ads were misleading or offensive under the general
rules in the codes. Of those 400 complaints 200 related to alcohol
ads or campaigns. Those 200 cases represent about 1% of the total
and equate almost perfectly with the proportion spent on alcohol
ads.
Q461 Sandra Gidley: We have been
told by two eminent experts on alcohol, Professor Gilmore and
Dr Peter Anderson, that the current UK regulatory system for alcohol
advertising is relatively lax. Do you agree with that?
Mr Parker: I do not agree with
that. Our content, scheduling and placements rules are strict.
They were further strengthened in 2005, in part as a result of
the government's alcohol harm reduction strategy. We do a lot
more besides just assessing and if necessary investigating and
upholding complaints. TV and radio advertising, not just alcohol,
is pre-cleared by two organisations: Clearcast and the Radio Advertising
Clearance Centre. On the non-broadcast side we operate a copy
advice service that gives a lot of advice to advertisers etc who
want to check whether their ads and campaigns are okay under the
rules. Last year we received over 200 written inquiries from alcohol
advertisers and agencies wanting to make sure that their ads and
campaigns complied with the rules, but we also put a lot of emphasis
on the more proactive side of things, for example regular monitoring
of all ads particularly those relating to alcohol. In 2006, 2007
and 2008 we undertook fairly extensive alcohol compliance surveys
where we looked at a representative sample of alcohol ads and
assessed them against the rules to check compliance. Compliance
rates have varied a little. In 2006 the rate was 95%. That is
the lower end of what we regard as acceptable. We put quite a
lot of effort and resource in talking to the industry to explain
where we think it is going wrong and how it can ensure that its
ads and campaigns comply with the codes. The compliance rate picked
up a bit in 2007; it was 97%. We are about to publicise the survey
we carried out in December last year just before Christmas when
historically there is a lot of alcohol advertising and it looks
as though the compliance rate has improved a little; it is 99%.
We believe that we have things well under control.
Q462 Sandra Gidley: Are there any
manufacturers who have not contacted you? Is there any correlation
between those who have and have not and compliance with the code?
Some ads seem to push it a bit. I am thinking in particular of
WKD ads which, certainly in a report I have seen, were slated
by the ASA as pushing the boundaries too far. Did they check those
before?
Mr Parker: I do not know whether
they have been seeking copy advice in the past year or two; they
may well have done. I am aware that we have found against 20 ads
or campaigns in the past three or four years since the stricter
rules were introduced in 2005. The written evidence we submitted
referred to 18 but there have been two further ones since. That
is for a variety of different offences under the rules. Youth
appeal and links to social and sexual success have featured on
a number of occasions. If it helps the Committee, I have a summary
of all those 20 adjudications and copies of the ads where there
are printouts. I can leave that with you. It is not the case that
there is perfect compliance, but in my view the ASA administers
these rules very strictly. It is quite notable that the decision
taken in the past year or so that has garnered the most media
interest was an adjudication against a poster for Courage. You
may remember reading about it two or three months ago. In that
case our decision was roundly criticised for being too strict;
we were accused of being humourless and poe-faced for not seeing
this ad as just funny. We thought the ad implied that drinking
Courage could give you confidence.
Q463 Sandra Gidley: What are the
advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation? Self-regulation
does not seem to have done the banks much good.
Ms Stross: In the broadcast area
it is not a self-regulatory system. Ofcom has statutory backstop
powers and therefore stands behind the ASA as it were with its
powers. We see the advantage of co-regulation as being that it
brings with it expertise of the industry to deal with a particular
problem and has the potential to enable faster changes in regulation
should they be warranted because the industry is engaged in the
process. You have expertise and speed, and it can be cheaper.
We believe that where the interests of the industry are aligned
with those of the back-stop regulator co-regulation can work very
well.
Q464 Sandra Gidley: The statement
"when the interests of the industry are aligned" is
an interesting one because I would have thought the interests
of the industry and its shareholders are to sell as much alcohol
as possible and pour it down young people's throats.
Ms Stross: I am speaking at a
slightly higher level. Guy can probably put it better than I,
but the advertising industry in general sees it as being in its
interests that advertising is regarded as legal, decent, honest,
truthful and a positive force in society rather than a negative
one. That is the root of the self-regulatory system for advertising
which has existed for a long time. That is where we see the alignment
of interest between ourselves as statutory regulator and the self-regulatory
aspects of the ASA.
Mr Parker: That is right. The
key reason why the advertising and media businesses support and
pay for co-regulation of advertising is because they want to maintain
high standards in advertising. The reason they want to do that
is that they know, taking the longer-term perspective, it is in
their interests for standards to be high not just because it prevents
restrictions that they might see as unreasonable being brought
in but because if people trust advertising and believe that generally
speaking it is responsible they are more likely to respond to
it. If they are more likely to respond to advertising that makes
the marketing budget go a bit further.
Q465 Sandra Gidley: Are you saying
effectively that they are trying to be good boys and girls in
plugging alcohol because if they do not do it properly we might
pull the plug on the advertising?
Mr Parker: No. I am saying that
the industry generally are trying to be good boys and girls because
they worry that if they are not the public will lose faith in
advertising and it will not provide the value to them that they
want it to provide.
Q466 Dr Stoate: I find those answers
complacent, to say the least. You refer to the idea of the industry
desiring to keep up standards. Let us not beat about the bush.
It did not work with tobacco. We tried a voluntary code and all
sorts of self-regulation and in the end we got so fed up with
the whole lot we had to ban it. Clearly, they showed no interest
whatsoever in managing to produce ads that were socially acceptable
and in the end they had to go. To make a wider point, the Royal
College of Physicians has told us that the misuse of alcohol in
this country kills 40,000 people a year. Why do you allow the
advertising of alcohol at all?
Mr Parker: One thing that is important
from our perspective is that we respond as an evidence-based regulator.
This inquiry comes at a good time in one sense because the codes
have just been out to consultation. CAP and BCAP are still consulting
on whether or not the alcohol rules should be tightened up as
a result of the ScHARR review that I know has been discussed in
quite a lot of detail in previous sessions of this inquiry. CAP
and BCAP will look at the evidence and respond to those who choose
to submit responses to their consultation. They must make a judgment
about whether or not the evidence is good enough to justify further
restrictions in the alcohol rules and that is what they will do.
Q467 Dr Stoate: We have had this
with tobacco and it did not work at all. Alcohol costs billions
of pounds a year in social costs in terms of damage, crime and
the disorder it causes. We have evidence, which we shall be looking
at later in this morning's session, that the rules are being breached
left, right and centre. Obviously, I do not want to go into that
right now because my colleagues will come up with examples of
it during the morning session. The fact is that the current system
is not working; we do not see the reductions in consumption that
we need to see, and there is no question that advertising takes
a big chunk of the blame for it.
Mr Parker: I think you have to
look at the impact of advertising in the context of our relationship
as a society with alcohol across the board. There are all sorts
of things that influence drinking in this country. In this country
the majority of people who drink do so sensibly. There is a big
difference between alcohol and tobacco. It is generally considered
true that you can consume alcohol sensibly. I am not sure one
can say the same about tobacco. Important differences need to
be taken into account.
Q468 Dr Stoate: The difference is
that generally speaking with tobacco you harm only yourself but
with alcohol quite often you harm other people. There are significant
differences. Do you think we were wrong to ban tobacco advertising?
Mr Parker: I am here to talk about
the ASA and its involvement in regulating alcohol advertising.
I disagree with your analysis that the system you mentioned earlier
does not work. I think it does work. I shall be interested to
hear the examples you have found where it does not work and, if
necessary, follow them up, but we have a lot of good evidence
that the system does work. The ASA/CAP/BCAP system must respond
to society's concerns about things like alcohol based on the evidence.
CAP and BCAP's view is that the evidence that alcohol advertising
causes misuse is not strong, so we must take that into account
when determining what our response should be. We sign up to the
principles of good regulation, as you would expect us to, and
two of those five or six principles are proportionality and targeting.
We must make sure we do that when we consider these sorts of issues.
Q469 Dr Taylor: Do you think that
those of us who hopefully drink sensibly are affected by advertising
at all?
Mr Parker: Yes; I suspect it has
the potential to affect everyone. The more important concern in
the context of society's relationship with alcohol is whether
or not such advertising causes dangerous styles or levels of drinking.
Q470 Dr Taylor: Surely, is that not
where alcohol advertising is targeted, in particular to get young
people started and get them to drink vast amounts?
Ms Stross: I do not think that
is the case. If you look at the rules governing broadcast television
advertising there is a set of rules that has been designed with
all drinkers in mind, but there is also a set of rules on the
content of advertising that is targeted particularly at trying
to protect the under-18s. This is one of the duties of Ofcom as
a broadcast regulator. There is a body of rules within the alcohol
advertising rules that stops advertisers associating advertising
with youth culture. You are not allowed to use people under 25
in an ad for alcohol. There are particular kinds of behaviour
that advertising for alcohol is not allowed to depict precisely
because it is felt that those styles of behaviour would be attractive
to young people. There is a very direct attempt in the rules on
the content of advertising to protect young people as a defined
group as well as protecting drinkers in general.
Q471 Dr Taylor: I believe Mr Parker
said right at the beginning that the rules were written by the
industry. Is that right?
Ms Stross: The present television
advertising rules are ones that derive from Ofcom's predecessor
broadcast regulator, the ITC, although they are currently being
consulted on by BCAP.
Mr Parker: In my opening statement
I was referring generally to the rules which are written by the
industry. What may have caused confusion is the fact that in late
2004 and early 2005 we took over responsibility for regulating
TV and radio advertising under contract with Ofcom. Ofcom had
started and nearly finished the process of strengthening the TV
rules at the time we took over responsibility for the system of
broadcast ad regulation. Off the back of the recommended changes
to be introduced on the broadcast side the non-broadcast Committee
of Advertising Practice made equivalent strengthening changes
to the non-broadcast codes.
Q472 Dr Taylor: We are told that
the assessment of the European Court of Justice is that "it
is undeniable that alcohol advertising acts as an encouragement
to consumption." That is pretty obvious because people would
not advertise if it did not produce an increase in consumption
and sales. Is this acceptable when we know about the harms caused
by alcohol?
Mr Parker: I think it is why we
must have tough rules and the alcohol rules are as strict as they
are and do not just cover the content of ads but their scheduling
and placement to make sure they are not targeted at the under-18s.
It is not just about under-18s though that is one of the primary
worries we have as a society. Very strict rules apply to ads that
target older age groups as well. I believe that is a proportionate
response to the point you make that advertising can have an effect
on consumption.
Q473 Dr Taylor: If alcohol advertising
was completely banned would it affect the sensible drinkers?
Ms Stross: It is very difficult
to draw clear lines of causation between the advertising of alcohol
and its consumption. The SCHARR report looks in great detail at
the evidence in this area. As I understand it, its findings were
that you could much more readily link the pricing of alcohol to
the level of consumption than you could draw very straightforward
lines between the advertising of alcohol and its consumption.
That is an area where the review itself said more evidence was
needed. There are many factors that influence consumption and
the way in which alcohol is consumed. Clearly, advertising is
one of them but in thinking about what form of regulation of advertising
is proportionate you have to consider how large is its effect
relative to all the other effects on alcohol consumption.
Q474 Dr Taylor: Would any form of
curb of advertising be proportionate or justified?
Ms Stross: Certainly in broadcast
advertising those curbs exist already. One is not allowed to advertise
alcohol at all in or around programmes that are either made for
young people or are of particular appeal to young people. There
are times when one simply cannot put alcohol advertising in one's
schedule and when one can show alcohol ads their content is strictly
regulated. This is already a highly regulated area.
Q475 Sandra Gidley: What about programmes
like soap operas where the proportion of young people watching
them falls within the regulations but the numbers watching are
really high. That is not picked up, is it?
Ms Stross: It is not, because
the way in which we measure whether or not a programme is deemed
to be of particular appeal to a young audience is by the proportion
of young people in the audience. As you say, soaps may have large
numbers of young people watching them but the proportion of young
people is perhaps only half as high in the viewing audience to
the soap as in the viewing audience generally.
Q476 Sandra Gidley: But possibly
they watch EastEnders more than programmes that are designed
for them, so should not absolute numbers be a consideration in
this as well?
Ms Stross: In a sense that is
where the content rules come in.
Q477 Sandra Gidley: I meant Coronation
Street?
Ms Stross: While you can advertise
alcohol around Coronation Street or EastEnders—of
course there is no advertising in the latter—the content
of that advertising is still regulated in such a way as to ensure
it is not appealing to young people.
Q478 Dr Naysmith: Mr Parker, you
have already been accused by Dr Stoate of displaying a slight
element of complacency in your answers. The reason he may have
thought that is that in describing the regulatory system for advertising
alcohol you have been using phrases such as "not lax",
"rules are strict", "tough rules" and "we've
got it about right". You suggested that the strategy was
in line with the government's harm reduction strategy for the
harm it does and so on and yet things are getting much worse.
The increase in liver disease is quite obvious. When we were in
Scotland recently we found the figures a bit terrifying and the
kinds of antisocial behaviour taking place do not appear to be
being controlled very well. All the evidence suggests that young
people in particular are drinking more alcohol than is good for
them. I admit that it is only a proportion of the population but
certainly that applies to quite a lot of them. That is what gives
rise to suggestions of a little bit of complacency. Last week
a paper appeared in The Lancet which argued for a complete
ban on all alcohol advertising. They quoted quite a lot of evidence
to suggest that that would be good for society. Presumably, you
would not agree with that. If not, can you tell me why not? You
said that it had to be evidence-based.
Mr Parker: I am sorry I came across
as complacent; I certainly did not mean to. I hoped I could communicate
to you quite the opposite. We spend a lot of time and effort trying
to make sure that the industry knows, understands and complies
with the rules and in responding to complaints we make sure we
assess them thoroughly against those rules. The situation is a
bit fluid because we are in the process of consultation. CAP and
BCAP will be looking at the responses which no doubt will include
people who submitted the article in The Lancet to which
you refer.
Q479 Dr Naysmith: What I sought to
imply was that the rules do not seem to be working. The evidence
suggests that they do not have much of an effect, and I suspect
that later questions will be asked about that. There is no point
in saying they are strict if the rules are not working.
Mr Parker: But I do not accept
the conclusion you draw that the fact there are still concerns
about drinking in this country means that the advertising regime
is not working. We know that our relationship with advertising
is subject to a very large number of factors. There has been considerable
discussion in previous sessions of this inquiry about a lot of
other things that might have a big impact on levels of drinking
and alcohol misuse: discussions about pricing and wider availability;
the impact of peer groups and family; and more liberal licensing
laws now than previously. Might that have an impact? I do not
know the answers to these questions, but I know there are many
factors that must play a significant part in how we as a society
consume alcohol. One ought not to point the finger only at alcohol
advertising and say that because we still have this problem alcohol
advertising must be out of control.
| 
