Could broadcast self-regulation be on the cards?

Apparently the Government wants to remove statutory controls on broadcast advertising. But is the industry ready to handle the task of regulating itself? Alasdair Reid investigates

Can the forthcoming media White Paper possibly bear the weight of expectation that's already been placed on it? Last week, the speculation was about what's going to happen in the rich and strange world of advertising regulation, especially broadcast advertising regulation. And it is a particularly Byzantine world, surely ripe for reform. Lead watchdog is the statutory body the Independent Television Commission, which is charged by the Government with responsibility for ensuring that broadcast content, including advertising content, meets its codes. It can fine offenders or, as an ultimate sanction, remove their licences.

Then there's the Broadcasting Standards Commission, another statutory body, but one with less power. No power at all, actually, except for the threat of public embarrassment should offenders fail to atone (by public apology) for their sins. The BSC can only act on complaints lodged by members of the public; the ITC has a monitoring role and can act on its own initiative. The other difference is that the BSC covers TV and radio and its remit also covers the BBC while the ITC is concerned only with commercial television. The ITC's radio equivalent is the Radio Authority.

And then there's the two independent copy clearance bodies, run principally by media owners -- the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre for TV and the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre. They're there to ensure copy doesn't fall foul of the statutory advertising and sponsorship codes as overseen by the ITC and the RA respectively. Last week, the Government gave the clearest indications yet that it was prepared to contemplate a new regulatory environment in which this hotpotch of bodies is ditched. Whatever the statutory backdrop, the industry would be left to work out its own self-regulatory structure, free from government interference.

Scary prospect? Or is it about time? Rupert Howell, the president of the IPA, has no doubts. This has been one of the main themes of his presidency. He states: "I think it's clear we may now see an end to the regulatory nonsense where the industry is overseen by so many different bodies of do-gooders. The case for self-regulation is clear -- although we are not talking about a free-for-all because people might lose their trust. I can imagine the BACC remaining independent as it is now, and if it clears an ad, it goes on air. If there are complaints, they will be dealt with in the way that the Advertising Standards Authority deals with complaints now. The ASA system is one that works fantastically well and it has been held up as an exemplar of good practice. I have always believed that the way to get people to behave sensibly is to treat them like grown-ups."

And, of course, the print medium -- which has never been saddled with cumbersome legislation -- could provide a blueprint. Here, issues of honesty, decency and truthfulness are overseen by the ASA (an independent body funded by the industry), working to rules drawn up by its sister organisation, the Committee of Advertising Practice. In fact, the ASA remit could just be extended to cover broadcast, couldn't it?

Perhaps, Andrew Brown, the director-general of the ...