| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Lady that I would never make that mistake.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I am full of admiration for my hon. Friend's remarkable political talents, may I put it to you that I do not think that my constituents would make that mistake either? I would be very alarmed if Ministers thought that I was the Member of Parliament for the Vale of York.
Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)
12.34 pm
Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the advertising of high fat, high sugar and high salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling.
Some 89 organisations now back my campaign. They include the National Heart Forum, the Food Commission, the National Union of Teachers, Diabetes UK, the Women's Institute, the National Consumer Council, the British Heart Foundation and the National Obesity Forum. Those well-respected organisations, which have a wide range of members, back my campaign because they recognise that we have a serious health problem, with increasing childhood diabetes and obesity, both of which can kill. The organisations backing my campaign to ban food and drink advertising to children recognise that the continuous advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drink to children has an impact on their health.
Early this year, I took my concerns to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose Department has the powers to prevent the products from being ruthlessly targeted at children via television. She asked me to give her more evidence. I gave her more evidence. She asked me to wait for the results of the findings of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA has published its report, "Does Food Promotion Influence Children? A Systematic Review of the Evidence". It reviewed 118 research papers and concluded that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption.
To put it simply, children are subjected to repeated imagery and carefully constructed memorable jingles. The message is that the products are fun and make children happy. Children repeatedly see adverts in which happy children are being made happy by happy parents giving them food and drink products that are high in fat, high in salt and high in sugar. For example, 89 per cent. of cereals advertised during children's television programmes are very high in sugar.
The sugar content of Quaker Sugar Puffs is a massive 49 per cent. It is 39 per cent. in Kellogg's Cocoa Pops, 40 per cent. in Kellogg's Frosties and 40 per cent. in Nestlé Golden Nuggets. The FSA guidelines say that products that are 10 per cent. sugar are high in sugar. The World Health Organisation recently suggested that people should restrict sugar to 10 per cent. of their diet for the sake of their health, yet the powerful food and drink industry is allowed ruthlessly and cynically to target small children with products that contain an amount of sugar way above what is good for their health.
It is worth remembering that children are encouraged to eat cereals every day. The fast food industry also ruthlessly targets children with adverts that encourage
them to want to make multiple visits to a particular chain of fast food outlets to collect parts of a toy. Parents are not made aware of the fact that, for example, a birthday party meal, which is indisputably targeted at children, contains 60 per cent. of the maximum total recommended daily intake of saturated fat, nearly 80 per cent. more sugar than the maximum total recommended daily intake and more than one day's full recommended intake of salt. That is just in one meal.The amount of salt a child should eat depends on the child's age. A two or three-year-old should take in about 2 g daily and a four, five or six-year-old about 3 g. It is therefore shocking that a product such as Golden Vale Cheese Company Attack-a-Snack Cheestring chicken wrap—yes, that is its name—which is repeatedly advertised on children's television, contains 4 g in a single portion, more than a child should have in a whole day.
I began by saying that I have received massive support for my proposals from teachers, health professionals, parents, colleagues and young people, yet the food and drink industry and the advertising industry continue to fail to recognise that there is a problem. They say that advertising high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content products designed specifically for children has no detrimental effects on children's health, yet the overwhelming evidence suggests the contrary.
The advertising industry says that this is not its problem, that advertisers are just a convenient target for politicians such as myself. The industry says that obesity and childhood diabetes are due to children not taking enough exercise. I certainly agree that regular exercise is vital to children's health, but so too is what they put in their mouths. Far from being an easy target for politicians, the massively powerful, multinational food and drink industry is able to employ well placed and well paid lobbyists.
As a nation, however, we have to put our children's health first. There are many steps that need to be taken. Children need to take more exercise, and better education is needed for both parents and children. The Department of Health has taken good initiatives in its healthy eating campaign and by providing free fruit in schools. Those initiatives are, however, severely undermined by the spending power of the food and drink industry, which is able to spend up to 100 times more promoting its high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt products than the Government spend on their healthy eating campaigns.
Independent Television Commission guidance has failed to prevent the advertising industry from ruthlessly targeting children, and Ofcom's recent suggestion that the industry should be self-policing would demonstrably be ineffective. What is needed is legislation. We need to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt food and drink on children's television. My Bill would do exactly that. However, owing to the procedures of the House or a lack of parliamentary time, my Bill may fail to become law, and I call on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to support the Department of Health initiatives and protect children's health by doing what public opinion is overwhelmingly calling for: banning the advertising of food and drink from children's television scheduling.
I commend my Bill to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Linda Perham, Vera Baird, Ann Clwyd, Dr. Brian Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Brian White, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Geraint Davies, Andrew Mackinlay and Angela Eagle.
Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)
Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 171].
Quality of Life
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I am pleased to open the debate on quality of life in local communities. The issues involved affect everyone in each of our constituencies. People open their front door, step out on to the street and care about the world around them and the issues that they face. Many of those issues have been ignored by politicians and policy makers because they were seen as being simply about the private realm—local matters for individuals to sort out for themselves.
We ignore those issues at our peril. They cut across many different communities, Departments and agencies, and they manifest themselves in different forms in different areas. MORI has done research in recent years into what makes somewhere a good place to live. It found that 56 per cent. of people were concerned about low-level crime; 39 per cent. pointed to health services as the most important factor; 37 per cent. referred to affordable, decent housing, and 28 per cent. said that shops were most important.
Interestingly, however, all those factors ranked higher than job prospects, local schools and facilities for children. People's impression of their quality of life is affected by their sense of belonging and pride in their area, not only their town, town centre or city but their own neighbourhood, their estate or the place where they live. MORI provided evidence that many people who thought that they lived in a fantastic, bubbling and buzzing city feared that they lived on a problem estate and were not proud of the street where they lived.
MORI also looked at issues affecting communities in different parts of the country. People surveyed in north Kensington said that the things that would most improve their quality of life were a reduction in crime and more activities for young people. In Southwark, the highest priorities were cleaner streets and the environment, followed by facilities for young people. In Dorset, the priority was housing, followed by buses. In Southend, people mentioned dog mess, followed by buses. In Seven Sisters, the priority was crime and litter, and in Hartlepool it was better play areas for children. People care strongly about the quality of their local environment and the strength of their local communities. That is about more than simply housing or their private circumstances—it is about the world and the community around them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |