Ofcom moves into line of fire

Secretly, Ofcom may be rather relieved that the Barclay brothers have (apparently) done a pre-emptive deal with Conrad Black to buy the Telegraph.

After all, the other two front-runners for the prize – DMGT, which owns the Mail and Mail on Sunday, and Richard Desmond’s Express Newspapers – would have set the fledgling uber-regulator a messy, invidious task had either come through. Among its many regulatory duties, Ofcom must examine any would-be newspaper magnate’s fitness to safeguard ‘accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion’. On this count, the Barclays should have least to fear. Unlike their two rivals they are not news monopolists and they have already given a highly public undertaking to remain politically even-handed. The undertaking, planted in a Guardian interview, would be a highly embarrassing hostage to fortune should the brothers ever choose to go against it.

So far so lucky for Ofcom: but it may be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire. A different ordeal will likely mark its opening months, and one partly of its own making. This concerns the vexed issue of advertising regulatory reform which, by common consent, is long overdue. The idea of merging the separate regulatory machinery of television, radio, press and posters and cinema into a single body ultimately subsumed under Ofcom looks like a rare outbreak of common sense. The controversy lies in that old problem: who will guard the guardians themselves?

Ofcom wants to hive off day-to-day responsibility for broadcast advertising, up to now statutorily regulated, to a subsidiary of the Advertising Standards Authority, which is a self-regulatory or – as some would see it – industry-regulated body dealing with press, poster and cinema advertising. This has led to an outcry by the National Consumer Council and Consumers’ Association, which claim there is a not very subtle Ofcom agenda to cut out the consumer and ‘give advertisers a licence to run their own show’.

Suspicions of a conspiracy are further fanned by Ofcom seeming hell-bent on sorting out the regulatory issue before its own consumer panel (which could act as a restraining influence) is set up and in a position to remonstrate. Why the haste, when Ofcom has so much else to deal with?

The truth is almost certainly not so sinister. The ethos of the Communications Act is a ‘lighter touch’, implying delegation and self-regulation rather than legislative interference. Ofcom is, arguably, already overstretched in its responsibilities. Why would it wish to intervene in a way that goes against the grain of the Communications Act? Yet it must quickly find a replacement for the defunct regulatory regimes of the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority without creating a makeshift interim body or, worse, a vacuum.

Even so, the consumer bodies have a point. Expediency is not the only issue here. Giving effective control of the codes of practice to an industry that is being lambasted for its manipulation of children’s eating habits may not be an astute move by Ofcom.

Torin Douglas, page 17