---

Television Advertising (Food) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing the Bill and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to our debate and to this House. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing what he has to say. I start by saying that I do not represent any interest; I am not an expert even in this field but I am interested in the welfare of children and the effect that health in children has on the general health of a population. I shall speak from that point of view. The rate of obesity in children has risen in both boys and girls aged between 12 and 15 so that now 18 per cent—getting on for one in five—are obese. That is the evidence produced for us by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research and Diabetes UK. They go on to say that not only has the rate of obesity in children increased ““dramatically””—their word, not mine—but that this trend has dangerous implications for the health of these same young people in later life because of the increased risk of cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Of course, nobody is suggesting that diet alone can solve the problem of childhood obesity. Exercise is also essential for the health of young people, but that needs to be addressed by other means. That is one area in which I support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Meanwhile, we are in danger of raising increasingly obese adults. Today, one in five adults in this country is obese and the fear is that by 2010 that figure will be one in four. An unhealthy diet and excess bodyweight are second only to smoking as risk factors for cancer—risk factors that it is in our power to do something about. Similar analyses have been done, with similar conclusions, on the connection between obesity in children and the risk of heart disease and diabetes. The next question is: what has television advertising to do with that? The facts are, first, that children and young people are heavily influenced by television and, secondly, that they do not watch only the TV programmes that are provided especially for them, as research done by Which? clearly indicates. In fact, the programmes most appreciated and watched by children are generally those that are principally aimed at adults. Hence the prohibition of the advertising of fatty, oversalted and oversweet food on television before a new 9 pm watershed proposed in the noble Baroness’s Bill. It should not be forgotten that, of the children who watch TV at that time, many are of an age to control their own diet —to skip the healthy choices that are offered in schools and to have lunch in the local burger bar and/or to buy crisps, chocolates and sweets on their way home. Addressing the problem of advertising on television will not, by itself, ensure that children are discouraged from eating unhealthy food. We know, for example, that strenuous efforts are being made in schools to offer healthy options at school dinners. However, advertising is a powerful influence on children’s choices. If that were notthe case, companies would not spend so much money on it. The argument may be made that the advertisers and television companies would lose revenue if this Bill were to become law. Personally, I think that the gain in the health of young people and in the reduction of costs to the National Health Service would be sufficient justification. But we know that suppliers adapt to the market. In future years, organic or local foods may come to have greater importance for food suppliers in sales and market share. To encourage that end, companies will no doubt advertise their new products with the same enthusiasm as they now advertise less desirable ones. Why does the regulator not deal with advertising dangerous foods on television if the problem is so serious? That would, in some ways, be the ideal solution. One of the spin-offs from this Bill—even if it does not succeed in getting enacted—could be to convince Ofcom that it has a duty further to regulate these matters in the interests of the health of children and the adults whom they will become. I hope that the noble Baroness’s Bill, whatever happens to it, will encourage Ofcom to look again at its policies on advertising fatty, salty or sugary foods before 9 pm. The noble Baroness has done children and their parents a real service in bringing this Bill before the House this morning. I hope that she is successful in getting her Second Reading. She has been very precise and quite modest in her claims about the importance of the Bill but, simply by putting it forward, she has raised the prominence of an important issue that affects not only children but also the adults whom they will become. The Bill may not survive the parliamentary process on which it has been launched but it will help those parents who are already trying to discourage their children’s tendency to prefer salty, sweet or fatty foodstuffs. It will encourage the medical organisations that have warned us of the dangers of these foodstuffs to continue their campaign and it may well encourage Ofcom to go further in the direction proposed by the Bill. That acceptance on the part of Ofcom that it can and should extend the watershed to 9 pm in order to protect children and young people could eventually be the best possible outcome of the noble Baroness’s efforts today.