---

Television Advertising (Food) Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, I add my congratulations to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on introducing what has turned out to be a very interesting and worthwhile debate. Secondly, I add my congratulations to those offered to the noble Lord, Lord Kerbs, who made an excellent maiden speech. Mind you, I expected that; I remember the noble Lord, when he was in badger mode, coming to talk about that subject many years ago. He is a very eloquent man. I also want to say something about the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Jones, neither of whom I have previously heard speak. I do not necessarily say that I agree with what both of them said but they made jolly impressive speeches and much enhanced this debate. The background to this debate is concern over the diet of children and a reported increase in child obesity. My colleagues and I on these Benches, and everyone taking part in this debate, share that concern. Perhaps I might just add that, although ““obese”” and ““obesity”” are, strictly speaking, technical terms, it seems unfortunate to label any child in such a pejorative way. I wonder what the effect is on youngsters who are—I am afraid that they are—name-called like this. Of course we all want to see healthier children but, if I had the freedom that the noble Baroness has to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to promote healthy lifestyles among children, I would not necessarily be treating what is more symptom than cause. My noble friend Lord Naseby and I would be looking to stop the sale of school playing fields. I would be looking to sweep away some of the silly rules that deter schools from taking children on outings. I would be looking to stop some of the obstacles that are put in the way of promoting sport in schools. I would be introducing a Bill to stop the Chancellor diverting lottery money away from sport. I would be applying my time and energy to promoting healthy eating and healthy lifestyles. I would propose, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Colwyn, that there should be a home economics course in all school curriculums. Before introducing yet another ban—how many more bans will be proposed by this illiberal Government?—I would ask whether often it is not so much advertising that promotes unhealthy outcomes as the whole television habit and some programmes that display unattractive and undesirable things that are far more damaging to health than eating the occasional bar of chocolate. To a large extent, it matters only marginally what you eat if you spend 15 hours a week slumped in front of a television. Childhood has many gifts and one is a spirit of exploration. There is a natural tendency towards activity and a growing desire to test the bounds of freedom. My own feeling is that, if we are to influence the minds of the young, we do it best by education, inspiration and challenge and not by bans. At the same time, I believe that we should try to inculcate self-discipline in children, both at home and at school. This job is down principally to parents, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby, but it is also down to the influence of teachers. Did the noble Baroness never eat a bar of chocolate as a child? Did her eyes never light up when she was offered one? Did she suffer any lasting damage as a result? Was it advertising that led her to want that chocolate or was it not merely honest, simple, innocent pleasure? If you are to ban advertising, what is the logic for not banning the sale or use in public places of such items? I do not remember one ban or rule from my childhood that a large part of me did not want to try to break, even if I was too much of a wimp to do so. After all, in my experience, what most gets a child wanting a KitKat is not a 5 am advertisement but the sight of another child enjoying one. No ban will do anything about that. We should be more positive in our approach to our common aim to promote healthy lifestyles and more far-sighted in our vision and memory of what it is to be a child. Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I am concerned at the impact of the Bill on British industry and the creative industries, including the making of television programmes for children. The ITV brief that I received had some troubling arguments on this front. We have, indeed, all received well argued and impressive briefs from a number of organisations on both sides of the argument. It is clear that not all the arguments run one way, but one thing shouts out from every brief. We are just starting a major experiment limiting the advertising of junk food during programmes using the FSA nutrient-profiling approach that the noble Baroness enshrines in her Bill. This Ofcom initiative is far-reaching and follows wide discussion. It is to be evaluated by the Government this year and next. Ofcom ruled out a complete pre-watershed ban because that would be disproportionately damaging to the broadcasting industry and it was not widely supported by the public. In fact, the Bill would extend a ban to programmes whose audience, as has been mentioned by several others, is 85 to 90 per cent adult. It is said that more than 85 per cent of all confectionery sold is bought by adults and that only a quarter of children under the age of 10 ever buy a soft drink for themselves. Perhaps the advertisers should be targeting the post-9 pm audience and not worrying about the children. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum, perhaps we should consider going back to food rationing. Surely we should respect the careful work done by Ofcom and others. We should see the outcome of the Ofcom experiment before changing the rules again. There is far too much chopping and changing of regulation in this country. We will not carry consent with those in the industry and elsewhere who are working with this new initiative if we tear it up before it has scarcely begun. For all the enthusiasm of the anti-confectionery lobby and their good intentions, it should surely be careful not to give the impression that it is not prepared to accept that every action taken by government must be proportionate to the evidence, if the consent that government needs is not to be lost. There has already been enough criticism—some of it justified—of the impact of the present rules in banning advertising of Marmite, raisins or cheese, all of which are reasonable components of a healthy, balanced diet. I am particularly interested in what my noble friend Lord Colwyn had to say on this. The Bill would ban the advertising of a range of food products between 5 am—how many six year-olds are on the loose then and, if they are, surely they have bigger problems than chocolate?—and 9 pm. It would put advertising of a chocolate bar on a par with major violence, explicit nudity, graphic sex and repeated violent and foul language. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, many people will think that this is frankly ridiculous. The solution must be an holistic approach. Better education for children, parents and schools is needed. In addition, the Government should work more closely with the food manufacturers and persuade them that producing healthier food is proactive and therefore profitable. Unilever, for instance, voluntarily does not advertise its fast-food products at all and refuses to use size-zero models in its campaigns. PepsiCo no longer advertises during prime time. Tesco is voluntarily reducing its packaging. Companies are beginning to use corporate social responsibility models efficiently on their own account, as opposed to having social responsibility imposed on them by the state. In conclusion, full marks to the noble Baroness for her concern for children, but rather fewer marks, I fear, for timing and method. We should not agree to a Bill to tear up the Ofcom rules before they have even been evaluated and I can therefore not advise my colleagues to support the Bill. If it received a Second Reading, it would need major amendment in Committee, even if it were wise to proceed at all. I urge the noble Baroness, for all her good intentions, to think again and give the Ofcom experiment a chance.