| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): I wish to address amendment No. 50--which is grouped with new clause 20--which touches on a similar area of concern. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has referred to the protection of children, which is a large part of my motivation in tabling amendment No. 50. I also tabled a number of other amendments which were not selected. I believe that the competence of the Broadcasting Standards Commission should be extended to include advertising. I would like to see the BSC empowered to adjudicate on complaints about advertising and other related matters. However, the amendment simply gives the BSC the power and the responsibility to conduct research into the effects of advertising on listeners and viewers.
I do not want to get into a debate about whether the BSC should exist or to start a competition between the BSC and the Independent Television Commission. The reality is that the BSC exists and, as its job is to deal with broadcasting standards, I believe that it should also address the question of television advertising standards. After all, advertising is as much a part of television as the programmes and advertising standards are of equal concern. People should be able to complain about advertisements to the body that is responsible for monitoring broadcasting standards.
Advertising is essentially manipulative: it employs great creativity for decadent purposes. It works by establishing associations with ideas. It encourages fantasy and it appeals to a sense of status, emphasising ownership as a status symbol. It appeals to hedonism and many advertisements have eroticism at their heart. On the whole, advertising is a means of encouraging increased consumption: it is the linchpin of consumerism and the consumerist economy.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of advertising on children. It is not difficult to argue that the manipulation of children for commercial exploitation is offensive. I believe that, by encouraging consumerism among children, we may be creating significant problems for the future. Sustainability will require husbanding the world's resources rather than squandering them. One hopes that thrift, rather than profligacy, will become a virtue in the future.
Appendix 1 of the 1995 ITC code recognises the impact of advertising on children by prohibiting the advertising of certain products. For example, it prohibits the advertising of alcoholic drinks, liqueur chocolates, matches, medicines, vitamins and certain films before the 9 o'clock threshold. The code states:
Advertising should be rigorously examined and researched--that is what the amendment calls for. I would particularly like to see that principle applied to advertising that encourages children to consume unhealthy food. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who announced the Government's policy on healthy eating, would welcome that move. It has been suggested that the code should prohibit advertising that encourages excessive consumption of fatty and sugary foods by children.
The National Food Alliance has expressed considerable concern about that matter and its research has confirmed many of our fears. It found that children's diets are too high in fat, sugar and salt and too low in fibre. It found also that advertising on children's television is dominated by commercials for sweet and/or fatty foods and that advertising can have a powerful effect on children's behaviour, specifically in relation to food and drink. That is a clear recognition of the power of advertising and its influence on children's behaviour. That is a serious matter.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from advertising, a major influence on children's diets is the composition of school
Mr. Dafis:
I agree strongly, but I suggest that we are straying wide of the subject for debate. As a schoolteacher, I remember being horrified when children in the dinner queue were presented with trayfuls of sweets. I thought that that was a thoroughly bad practice.
However, today I am concerned about advertising. Encouraging unhealthy eating is a serious problem. The National Food Alliance points out that 25 per cent. of British women--it does not comment about men--will be obese by 2005. It suggests a number of amendments to the ITC code. I would like those amendments to be examined as part of the research that the BSC should carry out in relation to the influence of advertising on the public, and specifically on children.
The National Food Alliance recommendations are supported by an impressive array of more than 50 organisations, including the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the British Dietetic Association, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the Low Pay Unit, the National Farmers Union and the British Heart Foundation. The recommendations were published in July 1994, but they were not taken on board in the ITC code that was published in autumn 1995. The issue of food advertising is only one reason for tabling the amendment. I believe that there are plenty more reasons and that the amendment deserves serious consideration.
Mr. Sproat:
I turn first to the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I understand his concerns about the potential exploitation of children in advertising and I know that the Safeway case that he cited disgusted many people. Both the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council received several complaints that the advertisement portrayed children in an inappropriate manner. The BSC has yet to deliver its findings on the complaints, but apparently the ITC did not find that the tone of the advertisement was sexually provocative or likely to encourage paedophilia. However, as I understand it, that was not the hon. Gentleman's charge: he objected to the advertisement's portrayal of children in a sexual situation. I hope that the ITC will view the hon. Gentleman's speech in that light and I shall certainly bring that point to its attention.
I agree that advertising must not sexualise children. The ITC code of advertising standards and practice contains the clear direction that
As I have said, I share the deep unease of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about what took place and I shall draw his remarks, which echo the opinions of many hon. Members and others, firmly and specifically to the ITC's attention. Following that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw new clause 20.
I shall turn now to amendment No. 50. Section 12(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 places a specific responsibility on the ITC to carry out or commission research into the effects of programmes, including advertisements. The Broadcasting Standards Commission may also, under the Bill, commission research into the effects of advertising to the extent that the research relates to matters falling within its remit, including issues of standards, fairness or privacy. The Government do not however feel that it would be appropriate to extend that power to cover issues relating to the effects of advertising generally. I hope, therefore, that in the light of that explanation the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will not press amendment No. 50.
Mr. Tony Banks:
I thank the Minister for what he has said. I know that he takes this matter seriously, as I do. I consider new clause 20 to be a shot across the bows of the advertising agency and the advertiser. A trend has not yet developed and I hope that, after our short debate and after the Minister has acted as he has undertaken to do, we will not see any such trend. I shall personally continue to monitor the situation, as will others. Under the circumstances and with the assurances that I have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
"Advertisements must not exhort children to purchase or to ask their parents or others to make enquiries or purchases."
Rule No. 7 states:
"No advertisement may lead children to believe that if they do not have or use the product or service advertised they will be inferior in some way to other children or liable to be held in contempt or ridicule."
If one applied those rules literally, one would find that most advertising complied with them. In reality, parents know the pressure that their children place upon them as a result of the influence of advertising. It is clear that much advertising has the very effect on children that the advertising code aims to prevent.
"Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner."
That is not the hon. Gentleman's claim--he would complain if the advertisement did that. He is complaining that the advertisement associates children with a sexual encounter between adults and that that is offensive. It is open to the ITC to strengthen its code in light of its own experiences and concerns and that of others, and it may now wish to do so. However, I do not believe that the example cited by the hon. Gentleman represents a trend in advertising that merits a specific legislative measure of this kind. I certainly hope that no such trend develops.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |