---

Television Advertising (Food) Bill [HL]

My Lords, with the exception of the rather depressing arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, this has been an excellent debate on a very important Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, redeemed himself with his more moving remarks about losing weight. I sympathise with his exercise and experience in those matters. None the less, I have some hesitation about his main arguments on resisting the Bill. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough and that it is therefore a first step. It should operate simultaneously with the Ofcom exercise, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said is far too slow in its insipient attempt at making progress in this vital field. But, above all, I have the honour of being the first person in this part of the Chamber to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on a truly outstanding maiden speech. It is one of the best I have heard since I became a Member of this House in the summer of 2004. I think that the whole House would thank him very much not only for his great expertise and experience, but for signalling, with the skilful presentation of his arguments, that he will make some extremely important contributions on many matters as the months unfold. We thank him for the particular focus of the FSA’s work in this field, which, to my mind, now is becoming increasingly urgent. I shall not take too long and go into the clauses of the Bill, although, in general, it is quite a gentle first step at trying to deal with this matter through legislation, which is unavoidable in order to achieve the right objectives. We owe a most cordial vote of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her colleagues, who were involved in the large exercise of getting this text presented to the House for Second Reading. The noble Baroness has enormous experience in retailing, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, food intake and children’s food. We thank her for her tireless efforts in promoting this Bill. The noble Baroness rightly wrote to Members about the Bill. Paragraph 2 of her letter earlier this year states: "““My Bill seeks to protect children from the worst excesses of television advertising for unhealthy food””." It is not really an overall blanket protection to save them completely from perdition in terms of food intake. It is a beginning. I am not an expert like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but I do not apologise for using the term ““junk food””. I know that it is emotive, but it helps us to make progress in this urgent field. The noble Baroness continued: "““It will introduce a 9pm watershed””—" I would be happy for 10 pm— "““for advertising foods high in fat, salt or sugar and brands associated with them””." On 21 May, I asked the Government what they were doing and was reminded that, with the public health White Paper, Choosing Health, they had enjoined Ofcom to do its own exercise which, "““recently introduced significantly stronger rules on television advertising of food and drink to children””." The Government used the word ““significantly””. I have my doubts about that. Ofcom is too gentle and is making the matter too complicated. This Bill therefore would help to simplify, in the right sense, a complex field, but we need to take drastic steps. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his Written Answer concluded: "““The Government are committed to evaluating the impact of these new measures and will then decide whether further action is necessary””.—[Official Report, 21/5/07; col. WA 75.]" If this Bill is given its Second Reading and goes to Committee stage where detailed examination can proceed, the Government ought to give some of their preliminary answers to those complex points at that stage. How urgent and drastic is the situation? In a recent paper, the Children’s Food Campaign, said: "““The statistics are really frightening: 92 per cent of children consume too much saturated fat; 83 per cent consume too much sugar; and 72 per cent consume too much salt. One in three children is now obese or overweight. Obesity in under-11s has risen by over 40 per cent in 10 years and the International Obesity Task Force estimates that each year in England 220,000 additional children become overweight or obese. It is extremely reckless and careless of people to suggest there should be no controls on this kind of advertising of junk food on television and other related media””." I know what happens with other media forms is a separate question. The paper continues: "““It is extremely reckless and irresponsible in the face of all that very scientific evidence””." The Ofcom measurement system too is producing the wrong results, as the noble Baroness said in her introduction. I agree with a speaker—I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell—who referred to the saddest photo of the year of very fat mums pushing junk food through the school railings, which was one of the most irresponsible acts I have seen in the press for a long time. I am glad that the newspapers for once highlighted seriously a very sad depiction. Walk down any street in Britain nowadays and you will see obesity in adults and children. We are getting like the United States, which I visit frequently, where the scene is truly terrifying. This is the frightening beginning of what has happened in the USA and we must do something about it. It is the duty of legislators to take action to protect children. The consumers of the worst junk food in the world are in the United States. They consume also the largest helpings. Go behind any luxury hotel in the US to see the food that is thrown away after excessively large helpings have been consumed. There you will see the huge tragedy of what is happening, particularly to children but also to adults. Is their Government doing anything about it? The answer is not much. There are some schemes, but the laissez faire attitude in America is bedevilling any serious efforts. In all parts of this House, elsewhere, and outside—many interest groups have done a lot of work on this matter—there is huge support for this excellent Bill. I believe also that the non-broadcast rules are a farce. They need looking at, but that is a matter for some other legislation, unless noble Lords want to propose amendments in Committee, which would be a good idea without taking up too much time in this very complex area. One of the difficulties is that because it is complex, we get nervous and hesitant about recommending specific, tangible solutions. I am glad therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has shown such courage in going ahead with this very convincing text. We can all argue about some of the points. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, when he winds up from these Benches, will make legitimate points about the difficulties of classification and definition, but I do not think that those would be reasons for us to retreat from giving this Bill a Second Reading. I am also very concerned about the Government’s lax—the only world I can use—attitude to non-linear TV advertising and promotion. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s open market attitude is commendable in one sense—the world of multi-channel rubbish, which I am afraid is the word to be used for most of what is inflicted on us. The free market choice for consumers actually producing good quality programmes is simply nonsense when one considers what mass television does in terms of its effect on declining quality as there are more channels. The Government’s attitude, as depicted through the Minister, Sean Woodward, in the other place, is that the advertisers will be allowed to do more or less what they like on non-linear television. As far as I can see, the promotion of junk food and, probably, even tobacco products will be allowed unless they pull their socks up and get back to a proper system of control. A politician’s duty is to protect the public from things that are manifestly dangerous to health in medical terms, which applies particularly to children who do not make their own choices. Should there not therefore eventually be an outright ban on adverts of any junk food at any time on terrestrial television, or would that annoy Rupert Murdoch? Would that therefore be a mistake for that reason? Two hundred and thirty-three MPs have signed EDM 404 and I am delighted to say that the new PM-designate appears to be very sympathetic to these matters, so perhaps there will be more hope there than from the retiring Prime Minister who has not shown much interest in this issue. Surely, we all need to support the Jamie Oliver initiatives and much more work is still needed to achieve anything near even half success. Voluntary agreements and codes of conduct do not work in this field. I know of the misgivings about the draft text and so on, what can be put in, whether the clauses are constructed in a rational way—those points can always be argued—and whether Ofcom has had full opportunities to draw up a more rigid system. The answer is no, but we have been waiting for some time. Despite those obvious hesitations, surely it would be best to send the Bill to Committee stage so that some of those points can come out in more detail and the Government can give their response. Perhaps the Minister will suggest that there might be some improvement in the drafting. However, none of that changes the reality and the duty that we all face today.