Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1340-1359)
11 MARCH 2004
MS MELANIE
JOHNSON MP, MS
IMOGEN SHARP,
MS DANILA
ARMSTRONG AND
DR ADRIENNE
CULLUM
Q1340 Mr Burns: I will just read to you
one of the sentences that Richard Caborn said, which seems to
me to be quite a good endorsement: "I am delighted that Cadbury
are prepared to support this drive to get more young people active
by providing equipment and resources for schools. In partnership
we could make a real difference to the quality of young people's
lives." That sounds an endorsement to me.
Miss Johnson: It was not a government
initiative and the Department was not consulted because it was
not a government initiative. We have obviously been working very
strongly with Dick Caborn and with the DCMS.
Q1341 Mr Burns: Does this sound like
an endorsement, though? It does to me.
Miss Johnson: I would not wish
to produce an interpretation one way or the other on it.
Q1342 Mr Burns: In other words it is.
Miss Johnson: All government departments,
including DCMS and ourselves, are strongly encouraging industry
to act responsibly with regard to food, particularly when promoting
foods to children. It was not a government initiative and we do
work very closely and very well with the DCMS on all the physical
activity and food promotion things more generally.
Q1343 Mr Burns: We were not asking a
question on the latter part of your statement; we were simply
asking if you thought, as a rational human being who can read
and understand what you are reading, if you thought that was an
endorsement.
Miss Johnson: It is not for me
to interpret these things. I am sure many people would interpret
them in different ways.
Q1344 Dr Naysmith: Dr Tim Lobstein, the
Director of the Food Commission, when asked what the Government's
top priority in tackling obesity should be, told us here in evidence
last September (and I quote): "I think top of your list is
going to have to be a recommendation that government bangs each
other's heads together, that is to say a cross-departmental nutrition
and physical activity policy. I talked to Tessa Jowell quite recently
and she could only see the sport aspect of her department and
would not listen to any discussion about the media side, which
is advertising. We had a great problem with her." I stress
that that is not me saying that, it is Dr Tim Lobstein; I do not
have any problem with Tessa, but we might fall out over this.
Was that simply a mis-representation or could you be doing more
to adopt a holistic approach? You said earlier that Tessa had
been misquoted; is it the same here?
Miss Johnson: The whole focus
on the work that Dick Caborn and I are doing is actually about
physical activity. There is a lot of work going on on food promotion
and Tessa is very much on the record on the subject of food promotion.
We were talking about it only earlier, so I think you have to
judge those comments with which I am not familiar in the context
of that. There are regular bi-lateral meetings focussing quite
considerably on the Public Health agenda between the secretaries
of state in Health—between John Reed and Tessa Jowell—and
between John Reed and Charles Clarke in DfES. There is a lot of
work going on underneath that but there is contact at the highest
possible level on a constructive basis to actually join the agendas
up. I think the White Paper is providing a very welcome opportunity
and we are working very closely with other government departments
on their contributions to the debate, the discussion and to the
formulation of things going into the White Paper on public health.
Q1345 Dr Naysmith: We look forward to
the Department of Health at least leading these kinds of initiatives
and so on and trying to make sure that other departments do not
say things which conflict with policies that we have decided are
right for the health of the people of this country.
Miss Johnson: I note what you
say.
Q1346 Mr Burns: Is there a problem on
the mechanics of it in that obviously a number of different government
departments are going to have an input in their area of responsibility
that is part of the whole cake of public health. This is in no
way meant to be derogatory, but is part of the problem that she
happens to be the Secretary of State whom one would assume would
be interested and concerned about those elements within Culture,
Media and Sport that fall within the ambit of public health? It
is a bit tricky if she is jumping in and voicing opinions or making
statements or contributing to a debate that may not be as on-message
from your point of view as the Department of Health Public Health
Minister and there is not a lot you can do about it.
Miss Johnson: There has been no
problem and it is not tricky at all (if that was the word that
you used). With many of these things where a lot of government
departments have a role to play, there has to be good cross-government
working to tackle the issue, whether it is things like health
inequalities, urban regeneration, renewal issues, and public health
is one of those sorts of issues where we need to work across government.
We have, indeed, driven forward the agenda of working effectively
across government to the degree to which quite a large number
of the occasions on which we are discussing policy—I am
talking about "we" as the Government in this context—over
the last few years are now populated by meetings between ministers
in different government departments and I think that is a very
interesting development and it does demonstrate that the work
is going on well. If you look at what is going on at the local
level as well in terms of councils joining up with the PCTs, with
their trusts, with regional bodies, there is a whole lot of work
that everybody is recognising at every level of government can
only be taken forward by joint working. That joint working means
that you need to get together, you need to talk about things,
you need to formulate common policies. We have been doing this
very satisfactorily in this regard. The White Paper is another
example of how other government departments are contributing to
this agenda.
Q1347 Mr Burns: In 1999 I did a Private
Members Bill that was a Home Office Bill on football hooligans.
Kate Hoey was the sponsoring Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Obviously
with football hooligans, like public health, there was a knock-on
effect. In this case it was a knock-on effect with Culture, Media
and Sport and Tony Banks was the Sports Minister. I knew, from
the workings that I was doing on this Bill that there was great
tension between the two departments on the contents of this legislation.
One just gets the impression from things that one hears of what
is going on the background that there is some tension between
Culture, Media and Sport and Health on certain aspects of public
health policy and from one or two public statements that have
been made (particularly from Culture, Media and Sport ministers)
where it seems that they are trying to hijack the agenda. I would
not expect you to agree with that last comment for obvious reasons,
but you will know in your heart whether that is true or not.
Q1348 Miss Johnson: I cannot comment
on your earlier experience of cooperation between government departments.
In this regard we are all working very closely together. We know
we will not make progress unless we actually focus together on
the issues and actually work out what the different roles of different
government departments are in this. Of course the lead department
is the Department of Health but, as I have said many times this
morning, other government departments—including DCMS—have
a major role to play in various regards. That is not a particularly
complicated or difficult issue for us; it is something that we
have the mechanisms to deal with and with which we have had increasing
practice at making work well on the ground. Indeed, what it means
is that we have a lot more players, as it were, out there through
the stakeholders on the DCMS side, through stakeholders on the
DfES side who are actually in a position to take forward their
parts of the action that are necessary. Therefore I think we have
a much greater chance ultimately of managing to attack the problem
and to deal with it more successfully as a result of that. It
seems to me that more players in a team context are just a success
because it breeds the possibility of greater effectiveness.
Q1349 Mr Bradley: So presumably if there
is another Cadbury GetActive campaign your Department would oppose
it.
Miss Johnson: I do not think there
is likely to be another such campaign.
Mr Bradley: I take that as an agreement
with my question.
Q1350 John Austin: Tessa Jowell will
be before us and she can answer for herself.
Miss Johnson: She certainly can.
Q1351 John Austin: I am not sure whether
there was a misunderstanding of what she said, but what I tended
to hear from one of the things she was saying—and I think
we all accept it—was that if we get more active it would
be good for our health. That seemed to be implying that the real
problem of obesity was just that we were all a bit late in not
taking enough exercise and not concentrating on the calorific
intake side. I think she seemed to be saying that the evidence
is that our calorific intake is no higher than it was before,
whereas on the evidence we have seen many of those statistics
are somewhat suspect, given that they are largely based on self-reporting
and we all know when we are doing our units of alcohol count how
honest we are or how many drinks we might forget. Where there
is a problem of overweight and obesity, although there may be
a lack of exercise, the major cause is consumption of too many
calories. Do you think perhaps that Tessa did a disservice to
the debate by suggesting that it would all be solved quite easily
if we all got up and did a bit more exercise, bearing in mind
that to burn off one Mars Bar probably means a brisk five mile
walk?
Miss Johnson: I think it might
require more than that. However, Tessa is going to be before you
shortly and is going to be in a position to answer your questions
directly. I think, on the evidence of many of the things we have
seen reported, knowing what Tessa has actually said and seen the
detail of it, she has often been misreported or selectively reported
at least. That is a problem from which we all suffer, I am afraid.
It is not an unfamiliar problem therefore. I think with regard
to the exact balance, it is undoubtedly true that there are contributions
to tackling the problem to be made from more physical activity
and contributions to be made from looking at the balance of what
you eat and how much you eat. I think that there is a consensus
out there and Tessa would understandably be focussing on the physical
activity side of things because, with the exception of the promotion
of food area, obviously it is not a matter for DCMS about the
food and nutrition side of intake. They are obviously focussing
on outputs and calorific output. That is not something I think
concerns us at all. We recognise there is a role for physical
activity as much as food intake.
Q1352 John Austin: Could I take you back
to an area which Doug Naysmith mentioned which is an area where
DCMS does have some responsibility in terms of food intake and
that is on the advertising issue, particularly in relation to
young children. We have certainly had direct evidence that many
of the food manufacturers who are producing the less healthy foods
target their advertising at young people. They do employ the concept
of pester power in their advertising techniques. We have seen
that in their internal memoranda. There is not doubt that they
target young people. I would suggest they have a vested interested
in getting young children hooked on a high salt diet so they can
pour fizzy drinks down their throats at a later stage. Therefore
I think advertising is an issue, particularly advertising so far
as children are concerned. I noted that last week at the launch
of your consultation on public health where you are seeking to
gauge public opinion on a number of issues—including the
level of support for restrictions on advertising to children—the
same day the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport went
on record to voice her scepticism about such restrictions. If
responses to your consultation suggest support for tighter regulation,
particularly in advertising for children, will you be seeking
to change Tessa's mind? Do you think her statement and its timing
was particularly helpful in terms of the launch of your strategy
on public health?
Miss Johnson: I do think that
you will welcome the opportunity to talk to Tessa about these
things at considerable length and I will let her know that this
is forthcoming.
Q1353 Chairman: I think you can understand
why we wanted to have a joint session; that would have been helpful.
Miss Johnson: Indeed, and I regret
the fact that that has not proved possible. On the question of
what ought to happen on the promotion of food to children—and
the promotion of food more generally—that is something that
the FSA has produced recommendations on. Those recommendations
are out in the public domain certainly today (they may have been
out a day or so ago). The board will be discussing them later
on today. We will be looking at what they have to say and we will
be feeding that into this process. I know Tessa will be just as
interested in that as I am.
Q1354 Mr Burns: On that point, you are
going to publish the White Paper some time in the summer; do you
know when, by any chance?
Miss Johnson: In the summer.
Q1355 Mr Burns: Do you know when? June,
July, August?
Miss Johnson: Not at this present
moment; only the summer.
Q1356 Mr Burns: Given that you are going
to publish a White Paper where, inevitably, things will become
clearer because you will outline the problems, the situation and
your ideas, do you think it is a bit premature and rather unhelpful
for any minister in whichever department that has input to public
health to be possibly voicing opinions on sensitive issues that
will obviously be dealt with in that White Paper, allowing themselves—as
you keep assuring us—to be misquoted, but they are still
contributing to a debate which I would have thought possibly would
have been more appropriate after the publication of your White
Paper rather than before.
Miss Johnson: First of all, as
I said on a lot of occasions if you look at the details, colleagues
have been selectively or actually misquoted.
Q1357 Mr Burns: Yes, but they have been
talking on the subject though.
Miss Johnson: Talking on the subject
is great; we are encouraging people to talk on the subject, let
us be clear about this. What we want is everybody to engage in
this subject and to talk about it.
Q1358 Mr Burns: Even ministers at this
stage?
Miss Johnson: I think it is rather
helpful for people to indicate some of the key issues and some
of the approaches that people ought to think about. I think the
debate that is going on is very healthy; I think the work that
you are doing will contribute to this; I think the work that is
going on in a number of other settings will help and I think that
everything that engages the public more widely in the question
of how can we best deal with this problem that is facing us all
is just going to be enormously constructive. That is why we have
all the joint working going on. We are not trying to stop things
from happening; we are actually trying to bring them together
in the most constructive possible way.
Q1359 Mr Bradley: In encouraging ministers
at this stage to contribute to the public debate, what are your
initial thoughts about advertising foodstuffs for children? What
is your first reaction to that as a Public Health Minister?
Miss Johnson: I have always found
that first reactions are not a terribly helpful thing really and
airing them at select committees is probably even less helpful.
| 
