Examination of Witness (Questions 400-419)
Mrs Mary Honeyball
7 NOVEMBER 2006
Q400 Lord Walpole: You think you
have got it about right.
Mrs Honeyball: I think so, yes. The other issue
about advertising is product placement.
Q401 Lord Walpole: I was about to
ask you that one, yes. Do you consider the proposed rules on product
placement and sponsorship are appropriate?
Mrs Honeyball: We have had an awful lot of discussion
in committee about this; I think quite a disproportionate amount
of discussion. Even in the United States where product placement
is accepted, it is a very small part of the amount of advertising
that there is available in the United States, something like two
or three%. You have to start from that basis, that this is not
necessarily going to be as big a deal as perhaps the Culture Committee
thinks it is going to be, but you do need some sort of safeguards
for this and people need to be aware that there is advertising
and there are various ways of doing that.
Q402 Lord Walpole: There must be
a lot of people like me who feel that the whole concept of product
placement is appalling and will switch to another programme immediately,
so it is possible that people will turn off if they do not like
it.
Mrs Honeyball: They might do. This whole issue
about being able to turn off advertising is quite a general issue
anyway because with the new technology that exists now you do
not necessarily watch television in absolute real time anyway,
and you can fast forward the advertisements which are actually
happening at the time. This may well be something that comes up
when we look at this directive again in the future, how advertising
on television works when people effectively do not have to watch
it. What you have talked about is probably part of a wider issue.
Q403 Chairman: That could point to
the fact that for the Commission, Member States, Parliament and
ourselves it would have been a better use of time to concentrate
on television services and think harder about whether or not to
intervene in their business models in a very different competitive
environment. I must say I thought you were a model of sanity in
these matters; is there any sympathy at all in the European Parliament
for the view that law-makers should think very, very hard in a
world where there is enormous choice and enormous competition
as to what they really do need to try to regulate by law? Has
there been any consideration at all, or is the starting point
there is a directive in the past so what can we do with that directive
to keep some controls? Is there any sympathy at all for questioning
whether in the modern era the technology you describe and the
competition are really pretty fundamental to television and there
should be no limitations at all, or is that a step too far?
Mrs Honeyball: At the moment that is probably
a step too far. That certainly has not been the way this subject
has been approached.
Q404 Chairman: I just wondered whether
in the committee there was—
Mrs Honeyball: No, not really, no.
Chairman: Qualitative issues, my Lord
Walpole.
Q405 Lord Walpole: Are there any
additional or purely qualitative restrictions on marketing or
advertising that you would consider necessary under this proposal?
Mrs Honeyball: There are a few things I personally
would like to see more of. When this came out I was quite interested
in the whole question of children because there is a whole thing
about children and broadcasting and advertising and how you deal
with that, and not only children I should think but the general
public. I never liked the idea that there is no need to protect
the public, but I do think that there are ways of actually doing
advertising and also the sorts of programmes you should have;
there are things that should be done with all of that. In terms
of advertising, we have not advertised tobacco for a long time
and I do not think we should be advertising alcohol on television
and I also think we should be very careful about advertising foods
which are not great—sugary and fatty foods—to children.
All those sorts of things we need to be very aware of; we all
know the reasons why and I would like to see restrictions on that.
We also need to be very clear about some sort of watershed, before
which you cannot show things which might not be in the best interests
of children.
Q406 Lord Walpole: Presumably that
all gets tied up with the same thing. I was involved with the
Gambling Bill here and gambling is another thing that you can
get access to under the same sort of heading, can you not—you
can watch a race, have you put your money and all that sort of
thing. What concerns do you have about the impact of advertising
on editorial control?
Mrs Honeyball: Certainly, the way it has worked
in this country I do not think it has ever been a problem; it
is not a problem but it could be. I have never in my life watched
a lot of American television—and I am quite relieved I have
not in a way—but you do see the blurring of advertising
and programme content and sometimes it is quite difficult to know
which is which. I certainly would not like that to happen here
and I do not actually think it will; there is nothing in this
directive to assume that advertising will become part of editorial
content, or the other way round. The two are very popular and
they are throughout Europe; I do not think it is an issue particularly
for any European country.
Q407 Lord Walpole: You think it is
an American issue mainly.
Mrs Honeyball: I think so, yes. I have to admit,
I have not watched lots of television but I have watched French
and Belgian television quite a lot over the years actually and
it is very clear. French television has blocks of advertising
and they start by saying this is advertising, there is a long
time and then they say it is finished. It is very, very clear
that it is advertising.
Q408 Lord Fearn: My question is in
two really. Concerning illegal or harmful content, do you consider
that effective mechanisms exist to control the types of illegal
content identified in the proposal, such as race hatred? The second
part is, is the proposal as amended likely to substantially enhance
restrictions on freedom of expression?
Mrs Honeyball: Actually the controls on this
are all right. Something that the European Union generally has
been quite sensitive to is race hatred and those sorts of issues,
so I think it is actually not too bad. There is always the ultimate
sanction of Member States being able to use their own legal system
and their own criminal law in cases where they need to, so I actually
think those things are probably all right.
Q409 Lord Fearn: Freedom of expression?
Mrs Honeyball: I am not aware that freedom of
expression in the EU in terms of television has ever been a problem.
I do not have any particular issues with any of that, I think
it is probably all right.
Q410 Lord Fearn: Do you think the
Member States such as Sweden would have their own restrictions
and stick to those?
Mrs Honeyball: It comes down to how you define
freedom of expression really. What we were talking about earlier
about Sweden having rules and regulations that stop half the things
being advertised to children is actually good; I do not think
that is actually an imposition or a restriction of freedom of
expression. I suppose it depends where you are coming from on
this, but I think that the balance is all right.
Q411 Lord Swinfen: I want, Mrs Honeyball,
to ask you about quotas for "European works" and "independent
productions". Do you think that they continue to be an appropriate
mechanism for addressing the demands of EU citizens for diverse
and local content?
Mrs Honeyball: Again, this is much more of a
European issue and it is less of an issue for us than it is for
other European countries. Actually in a world where there are
lots of television channels and they are increasing all the time
it becomes quite diffuse. These days if you wish you can have
access to 30 odd television stations and I am not quite sure how
you can do this sensibly. I am not sure that a country such as
France would agree with that necessarily, where they are much
more aware of the whole kind of cultural thing and they want to
keep—
Q412 Lord Swinfen: Keep everything
French.
Mrs Honeyball: Yes, exactly, which is a reasonable
point of view in terms of this, but I am just not sure you can
implement it sensibly any more. How can you divide the quota to
cover 30 odd television stations in 27 Member States?
Q413 Lord Swinfen: I will not do
the multiplication.
Mrs Honeyball: Exactly, it just gets to be a
difficult one, like a lot of this, and we are probably not approaching
it in quite the right sort of way. What I do think in principle
is that we should encourage European productions and European
works, and there should be ways of doing that.
Q414 Lord Swinfen: You would not
use quotas to do it; that is fair enough. How about non-linear
services, are you worried about that at all?
Mrs Honeyball: In terms of quota?
Q415 Lord Swinfen: Yes.
Mrs Honeyball: If you cannot do it for linear
services how on earth you do it for non-linear services I do not
know. In a way I think the internet is quite interesting because
it is so English-dominated—I mean English-speaking and American.
I do not know quite where you start with it so I do not think
you can do it.
Lord Swinfen: I understand that, there
are 22 countries all in English. Thank you very much.
Q416 Lord Roper: I am not absolutely
sure whether you have seen the revised Presidency draft?
Mrs Honeyball: I have to admit I have not. I
have a pretty good idea what is in it, but I have not actually
read it. I have to be honest here, we were in recess last week
so I have not caught up with one or two things.
Q417 Lord Roper: This is on the question
of industry self-regulation and there is a suggestion that the
revised Presidency draft in Article 3.3 does represent a change
of emphasis from the original draft. You may have had a chance
to discuss this with Ofcom, but the question I would really like
to ask you is if there has been this change of emphasis in the
revised Finnish draft compared with the original document to the
Commission, does this mean that the UK will be able to maintain
self-regulation under the oversight of Ofcom?
Mrs Honeyball: That is certainly what the Government
wants to do and we have had a lot of discussions, not so much
as a committee but I have had discussions with the BBC, with Ofcom
and with Government representatives about this and it is very
clear that what we are looking for is co-regulation between the
broadcasters and the regulators. I would be very surprised if
the British Government lets anything go through Council which
does not allow for that.
Q418 Lord Roper: It is at page 13
of the revised Presidency draft, Article 3.3, which My Lord Chairman
is about to present you with.
Mrs Honeyball: Thank you. I am sorry about this,
"Member States shall encourage co- and/or self-regulatory
regimes in the fields coordinated by this Directive to the extent
permitted by their legal systems."
Q419 Lord Roper: Does that encourage
you?
Mrs Honeyball: I do not see that that need necessarily
be a problem.
| 
