Recommendation 2

HM Government · verbatim extract Accepted in Part

We agree with the Committee’s conclusion on the need for Ofcom to carry out robust analysis on a range of EDI characteristics, something we have been doing since 2017. As part of this work, we already collect a range of data from broadcasters, including on age splits across the industry. Ofcom’s legal duties in relation to equality of opportunity in broadcasting are limited to specific characteristics: sex, race and disability, and we collect information on broadcasters’ employees in these areas on a mandatory basis. We recognise that equality of opportunity goes a lot further than this, so we collect a range of other information from broadcasters on a voluntary basis. This includes information on other protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 (age, religion or belief, sexual orientation, as well as geographic location, socio-economic background and caring responsibilities. From the start of our monitoring programme we have requested information on age split by sex, giving us a more granular picture of where barriers to entry and progression may lie. We also monitor some characteristics (including age by a range of metrics, including job level (in particular, those in senior roles, and job role (e.g. commissioning & programming, on screen, etc. With such a rich dataset, each year we highlight areas of particular concern taking into account this data alongside responses to our annual self-assessment survey which monitors broadcasters’ approach to promoting equality of opportunity. We also publish a large amount of additional data alongside our report, in our interactive data set. We absolutely recognise the importance of age diversity and have drawn attention to the under- representation of those aged 50+ in broadcaster workforces relative to the working population as a whole (for which the current figure is 33% aged 50). For example, in our five-year review of diversity and equal opportunities in UK broadcasting (2021) we drew attention to the lack of increase in representation of employees aged 50+ within the TV workforce, and the fact that age has the largest percentage point difference from the UK benchmark across the TV industry and second only to disability in radio. We said that broadcasters appeared to have focused on entry-level recruitment at the expense of retaining diverse staff and enabling them to progress. As the committee has highlighted, older people remain under-represented in the workforce. However, we are now seeing more progress: in 2018,16% of women in the TV workforce who provided data were aged 50+, for 2023/24 this figure is 22% of female employees (compared with 28% of male employees). In addition, where other characteristics are even more under-represented in senior roles, this is not the case for older people. 45% of senior managers in broadcasting are 50+, and 45% of broadcasting employees in on-screen/on-air roles. We remain committed to obtaining (and reporting on) as much voluntary data on age as possible, in addition to providing guidance for broadcasters on making equal opportunities arrangements. We continue to engage actively with industry and other stakeholders, for example facilitating opportunities for sharing of effective practice. IPSO was glad to be able to offer evidence to the committee during its inquiry and inform the course of its work. I am writing to respond to paragraph 49 of the report, a recommendation pertaining to IPSO specifically: “The Editor’s Code of Practice must balance the rights of individuals to protection from discrimination with freedom of expression in the press. The complete omission of age from clause 12 on discrimination gets this balance wrong, leaving older people unprotected and contributing to a widely held perception that ageism is taken less seriously than other forms of discrimination. There is no reason why age should not be included in the Editor’s Code of Practice with the same caveat on genuine relevance to the story as other categories currently covered by clause 12. “The justification of the omission of age from clause 12, set out in the Editors’ Codebook, that journalists must be free to comment on public figures who are “past their prime” is itself overtly ageist. We recommend the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee include age in clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice and update the Editors’ Codebook accordingly.” The case for the inclusion of age under Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code is one IPSO has been familiar with for some time through dialogue with interested parties, such as the Centre for Ageing Better, which has also provided evidence to this inquiry – as well as our own advisory panels of journalists and readers who bring editorial and lay perspectives respectively. When giving evidence to the previous committee membership, our head of complaints and pre-publication services, Alice Gould, set out the distinction between IPSO and the Editors’ Code Committee. It is the latter which, through feedb