Select Committee on European Union Third Report


CHAPTER 5: Advertising Content Rules

The 2005 proposal

127.  The Proposal, building on the Television Without Frontiers Directive, contains a range of measures that are designed to regulate the content made available through audiovisual media services. These rules can be sub-divided into four categories: (a) rules governing advertising; (b) rules governing harmful and illegal material; (c) rules concerned to ensure that content are diverse and originate from Europe, i.e., the production quotas; and (d) rules concerning access to certain content, e.g. so-called 'listed events' and news reports.

128.  The main concern of those raising questions about scope arise from the fact that some of these content rules would become applicable to a much wider range of undertakings and services than under the existing regime.

129.  Of these four categories of content rule, the one that generated the vast majority of responses from those that submitted evidence were the advertising rules.

130.  There was general acceptance that current qualitative advertising rules were satisfactory and did not require reform. We agree with this view.

131.  The rules concerning "European" and "independent" works, through the imposition of quotas, was felt by all respondents to have had little if no impact on the UK broadcasting market. Existing broadcasters stated that they far surpassed the minimum requirements.

132.  As there was little appetite for such quotas to be imposed, we are pleased that the revised text leaves it to Member States to define where action is needed to promote European and independent works, and where such action is practical.

133.  We also support the 'lighter touch' on quotas for on demand services, where the imposition of quotas would have placed unreasonable burdens on operators.

134.  Only a few respondents expressed an opinion about the rules concerning access. Current UK arrangements concerning the use of short news reports was considered to be perfectly adequate and did not require the creation of a new legal right. The Council's text permits such arrangements to continue in existence.

Harmful and Illegal Content

135.  There was consensus that there is a continued and urgent need to maintain controls over harmful and illegal content, particularly as relates to the protection of minors. We believe that these concerns remain valid and paramount.

136.  We would nonetheless draw attention to the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, an essentially self-regulatory industry body, which has seen a reduction in UK hosted child pornography from a global level 18 per cent in 1997, when the IWF became operational to only a 0.4 per cent proportion of global content in 2005 (pp 154-5). [4]

137.  We noted the Government's concern that the stated categories of material in the Proposal go beyond that which is currently illegal under UK law.

138.  The Minister told us that the United Kingdom was already "very well served" as regards regulation in this area through Ofcom and the Communications Act. (Q 159)

The Council's text

139.  The Council's revised text, and that of the Parliament, both return to the list of grounds for offence in the original 1989 Directive, rather than the Commission's 2005 proposal. These grounds are actually fewer than those set out in the Treaty.

140.  Some of the concerns over the impact of the new rules on freedom of expression were related to fears over the scope of the Directive, particularly the electronic press. As Mr Paulger from the Commission noted, "Now the demarcation lines are much clearer as regards scope the risk of restrictions on freedom of expression are much less than they would have been as the scope had been understood to be in the beginning." (Q 334)

141.  We are persuaded that the rules on harmful or illegal content will not pose a significant threat to freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, particularly in light of the reduced scope of the Directive.


4   Professor Ian Walden, who acted as Specialist Adviser to the Committee for this inquiry, is a non-industry board member of the IWF. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007