Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share time with Deputies Gormley, Boyle, Twomey and Connolly.

I introduce the Bill in the hope that we can have an open debate during which Government and Opposition Members can feel free to express their opinions on this important matter of public interest, namely, children's advertising. My intent is to drum up political support for new measures restricting advertising to children and I do not intend to score political points against the Government parties or the Minister. I hope, therefore, we can have an open and free debate.

The Minister pointed out in a press release earlier that I might be pre-empting the review being carried out by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and making up policy on the hoof. I assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. In all discussions and correspondence my party has had on this issue, we have encouraged people to contact the BCI, participate in its consultation process, visit its website, www.bci.ie and make submissions on the issue if they feel strongly about it. The Green Party will make a detailed submission prior to the closing date, 21 December 2003.

While the BCI is the correct body to carry out the review and engage in the consultation process, that does not mean we, as legislators, must be silent on the issue. When political decisions must be made, we are required to become involved. I take the Minister's point, which he has made on many occasions, that he does not want to get involved in day-to-day decision-making within his Department and he wants to concentrate on more strategic issues. That is correct because too many Ministers have been willing to get involved in detailed day-to-day activity and decisions. However, the restrictions on advertising sought in the legislation will not be easily arrived at by the commission. Ultimately, when difficult political decisions must be made it behoves us, as politicians, to say we believe in this.

I refer, in a spirit of goodwill, to three examples where difficult political decisions had to be taken by Governments to support what civil servants and other experts were saying. The three decisions were championed initially by the Green Party, and credit should be given where it is due. The first was the ban on bituminous coal, which was taken by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in a former guise. The second decision related to the ban on plastic bags, which was a significantly populist measure, but it was difficult to introduce politically. The best example, however, is the ban on smoking in the workplace. It would not have been possible to introduce such a ban had it not been supported by the Minister and the House. No matter which commission or civil servant had carried out an investigation into the matter, it would have been almost impossible to achieve acceptance of that decision by society if agreement had not been reached at political level.

The Bill addresses difficult decisions. While the BCI can weigh them up and assess the arguments, it will take political leadership to outline to the commission the direction in which we wish to go to change our society and to point out that it is fundamentally important that vested interests are taken on in this area and changes introduced. This issue involves significant money and powerful companies which will no doubt say there is no need to restrict advertising, including toy advertising, and that children's advertising does not affect their diets. However, there is such a need.

People may say the approach set out in the legislation is further evidence of the nanny State, where the State is involved too closely in the market, the advertising world and the everyday activities of children and parents. However, I reflect on this issue as a father rather than a nanny. Nothing has convinced me more of the need for the provisions specified in the legislation than my own experience with my children. I am typical of many parents. I recognise this issue involves parental responsibility and I do not want my child propped in front of a television all day. However, occasionally, as a parent, one must do that to get the house clean or get work done. When my child is watching television I do not want a company selling to him the worst and most unhealthy products because the following day when I am in a shop my four year old son is screaming at me, "Daddy, I have to have that product." That is my experience day in, day out of the effect of advertising on my child and that has convinced me that the amendments set out in the legislation must be made.

The primary intent of the legislation is to amend the Broadcasting Act 2001 by providing further specific detail, but not to amend it dramatically. However, if difficult and radical decisions to restrict advertising are to be made, it is correct for legislators to support the BCI by outlining the possibilities and providing more detail in the legislation about what could be included in the advertising code. We do not seek to finalise a code or to do the BCI's job. However, we are setting out options that will be difficult to get through politically. We favour a ban on such advertising but the Bill does not provide for it. However, it provides for the possibility of making a difficult political decision.

I outlined my experience as a father of young children and it would be interesting to hear about the experience and view of other Members. Are all Members happy about the advertising directed at children in Ireland? The debate is an opportunity for Members to outline what they believe should occur. Are they happy with the food advertising directed at children? Are they happy that many young families in difficult economic circumstances are under massive pressure at Christmas to purchase the right toys, which are often merchandised extensions of the television programmes viewed by their children? Are they happy that intensive targeting and marketing of young children, who do not know the difference between advertising and programming, is allowed? I hope this question will be addressed by other Members. Do they believe such advertising is correct? Do they believe the BCI should introduce a strict or lenient advertising code? I hope the debate will concentrate on what Members think of the current position and what changes they would encourage.

I refer to the content of the legislation. Section 1 amends section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2001, which relates to the advertising code and rules in respect of programme material. This is the most important section as it provides that advertising aimed at children can be regulated in terms of products that have a high sugar, salt or fat content. Deputy Gormley will address the health considerations behind this provision. We should also be willing to examine the possibility of restricting children's toy advertising. The detail should be left to the BCI but it is valid for us to raise the issue and outline within the parameters of the legislation that we are concerned about this issue and want the commission to address it. The section also provides for the possibility of restricting advertising to children below a certain age. Other countries, such as Sweden and Canada, have done so. This will involve a difficult decision. It is important for politicians to demonstrate that is a valid position to take. The legislation is a vehicle for proper debate on that issue.

In the next section, the main change is to require the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to take into account the physical health of children. Several of our amendments relate the health issue to that of advertising and propose that the Minister for Health and Children have a part in the decision-making process. That is the type of joined-up thinking required to tackle some of the issues affecting the health of our young children nowadays. In subsection (d) of our amendment to section 19, we propose that the Department of Health and Children be brought in to discuss issues. I should add that, in subsection (b), we call for support for media literacy tools to help children understand and combat the advertising which is directed at them.

Section 28 of the original Act deals mainly with the RTE authority. In this regard, we have taken the opportunity, where appropriate, to give the authority a role in looking at its own advertising, as well as its programming, in the context of the existing public service obligations. The key amendment in respect of subsection (a)(i) is the inclusion of the term “advertising schedules”, as well as “programming schedules”, to broaden the scope of the authority's activities. Later in the Bill we provide for the physical health of children to be taken into account in the authority's public remit. In subsection (c), we propose that the RTE authority must take into account the code as set out in section 19(1) so that the authority will work with the Broadcasting Commission in implementing the Bill.

I hope the Minister will accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is intended. It provides an opportunity for the House to debate this very important issue. It represents recognition that it is valid for legislators to set out further provisions in greater detail as to what is possible under the code. I hope the Minister will support the Bill and implement some of the measures we are proposing.

Mr. Gormley:

My party colleagues and I wish to share our time with Deputy Crowe, who was omitted from our earlier list.

An Ceann Comhairle:

That is agreed.

Mr. Gormley:

This Bill is timely, in the approach to Christmas, when there is a substantial increase in the advertising of toys. I thank the other Opposition parties for their support for the Bill. I appeal to the Government to put aside political pettiness and view this Bill on its merits. It is important legislation and it makes sense, and it is on that basis I ask the Minister to support it.

This Bill is a measure which parents will particularly welcome. Many of us who are parents of young children are concerned by the cynical exploitation of children through television advertising. The fundamental principle of children's advertising is pester power, in terms of putting parents under enormous pressure from their children. As young consumers, children are being targeted at a very young age. The approach is on the basis that they want a particular product – and they want it now. Parents are subjected to enormous pressure, especially those from disadvantaged areas. In the run-up to Christmas, that pressure is often so intense that parents will do without other requirements and go into hock to get their children the very latest gadget or toy.

As Deputy Eamon Ryan has said, it is often the case, as shown by research from Scandinavian countries, that children cannot distinguish between advertising and television programmes as such. There is cynical and exploitative advertising. In my capacity as party spokesperson on health issues, I wish to comment specifically on the issue of junk food. This is not a new issue for my party – we have been speaking about it for some time.

Deputy Ryan recently carried out a survey on the types of advertising which take place during children's programmes. Much of it relates to junk food and cereals with a very high sugar content, which amount to nothing more than confectionery, in the view of some people. Another survey published today showed that Irish people are getting fatter, in that 12.9% are now categorised as obese. That is very worrying because of the consequences later in life. Many surveys show that if obesity can be tackled in childhood, that is a very important step. If one leaves it until adulthood, it cannot be done. The consequences include the development of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other ailments which impose additional demands on the Exchequer as well as trying to deal with an already overburdened health service.

It is no exaggeration to say we are experiencing a global epidemic of obesity. According to Dr. Edna Roche of the department of diabetes growth and endocrinology at Trinity College, in a paper delivered last year, obesity now represents the single biggest public health issue on a worldwide scale. I suggest that such an expert must be taken at her word. It is of particular concern that obesity is now occurring early in childhood and adolescence. It is because of our concern in that regard that we have introduced this Bill. It makes sense to put a stop to advertising of the type of junk food which will give rise to health problems, with consequent financial cost. Figures from the United States show that the estimated cost of obesity in that country in the year 2000 was $117 billion. Much of that cost arises from treating the complications of obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis and heart disease.

I urge the Minister to consult the Department of Health and Children with a view to dealing with the issue, rather than kicking it to touch. He can deal with it by supporting this Bill.

Mr. Boyle:

Undoubtedly, media advertising is a powerful tool. At its best, it can inform and entertain, at its worst, it can mislead, distort and even pervert. At the heart of this Bill is an attempt by the Green Party to challenge the distortions, misleading attitudes and perversions of much of the advertising placed in front of children on a daily basis. My colleague, Deputy Gormley, has outlined the health aspects. It is particularly poignant that this Bill is being discussed in the run-up to the time of year during which consumer expenditure is highest. Very often, consumers are young children under the age of ten or 12 years and, in many cases, as young as six or eight years.

The concept of young people as consumers is only about 50 years old. It began in the United States with the invention of the teenager and rock and roll. As we become more affluent in western societies, buying power is, increasingly, in the hands of eight to 12 year olds. Marketing messages are being specifically targeted at people who have yet to come to terms with many aspects of life. Advertising can by cynical, not only in terms of product placement. Very often, television programmes are little more than elongated advertisements for toys. Perusal of programmes on any television station from mid-morning to 6 p.m. will show cartoon-type programmes which are nothing more than advertisements for widely stocked products.

We are putting forward this Bill on behalf of many Irish parents who have been affected by the reality of pester power, particularly through television, but also through radio. It offers a challenge to the Government to accept what we are saying. This Bill would constitute good legislation if it made its way successfully through the various Stages in the Houses of the Oireachtas. For many young children who are led by this type of advertisement, the products involved are very often to their detriment, not to their benefit. As has been said in another context, we do not wish to see the Government pursuing its intent of following the Boston model rather than the Berlin one. Perhaps we should speak of the Stockholm, rather than the Sacramento model of approach to advertising in terms of its dangers for young children. In the United States for instance, advertising is present in schools through television programmes broadcast into schools and product placement. Without the type of controls the Green Party suggests, we are not too far from that scenario, especially considering the ethos of some in Government. We put the challenge to the Minister that this legislation will find general acceptance with many on this side of the House supportive of it. The Government will add to how the House is perceived if it is prepared to accept this type of Private Members' motion.

Mr. Crowe:

I welcome this legislation from the Green Party and its author, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in particular.

The issue of advertisers directly targeting children is one that has become more serious in recent years, as the growing scale and sophistication of that form of advertising makes clear. These days many television programmes for children are just advertising for action figures, collectable cards and computer games. Earlier this year at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis, a motion was passed calling for a ban on all advertising directed at children under the age of 12 years, similar to that in Sweden. It is one matter to call for this to be done and quite another to implement it.

The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is conducting a consultation process on the matter and has produced a good deal of informative material on the subject. A breakdown of the amount of time spent watching television indicates an average of more than two hours a day. Children aged from four to six years average three hours of television, only slightly more than children aged 11 years to 14 years who, despite attending school and having homework, spend a great deal of time watching television. The BCI's consultation process, which is going through its second stage, deserves to be congratulated in seeking submissions from children on advertising.

I understand that, from the Government's viewpoint, this matter is being dealt with by the BCI consultation. However, this issue has not received its deserved attention. The opportunity given to us tonight by the Green Party to debate the issue is a welcome one and I hope other Deputies will join us in supporting the Bill, especially given its focus on children's health and well-being.

The definition of the terms "children" and "children's television" needs to be debated. As Deputy Eamon Ryan will be aware, the consultation process put in place by the BCI specifically addressed the need to define the term "child" in an appropriate fashion. Following the first phase of the consultation process, the BCI has, in principle, defined a child as anyone under the age of 18 years. The definition of a child in other EU states varies from 12 years and under to 18 years and under. The Education Welfare Act 2000 defines a child as being between the ages of six years and sixteen years. RTE defines a child as a person under the age of 15 years, with a separate category for young persons from ages 16 years to 17 years. Neither the Broadcasting Act 2001 nor the legislation proposed by the Green Party makes the effort to define the term "child". I would welcome clarification from the Green Party as to whether it accepts the definition of "child" as decided on by the BCI or other suggestions for a different definition.

We must also be aware that the definition of children's programming is at best, an inexact science. While it is easy to point to the section of the schedules that broadcasters set aside for children's programming, many television programmes designed for adults are popular with children. Programmes like "Friends", "The Simpsons" and "Home and Away" are watched by a significant number of children but are not necessarily characterised as children's programming. This explains children's high familiarity with television alcohol advertising, despite guidelines to keep such advertisements off air during children's television.

A survey carried out by Patrick Horan at DCU on children and advertising – admittedly on a small sample – found that 43.5% of children's favourite advertisements were for alcohol products while 32.5% were for food and drink. The vast majority of the latter, 97%, were for snack foods and cereals. While I agree that obesity is certainly a cause for concern, these figures are more disturbing when one wonders why, when cigarettes are banned from television advertising, alcohol advertisements are not.

I welcome the specific reference to the issue of healthy foods in the legislation. Last weekend, Dr. Patrick Wall, formerly a director of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and now a professor at UCD, criticised advertising directed at children which encouraged them to eat products high in saturated fats, salts and sugars. Population obesity levels in the State rose 1% per year between 1998 and 2000. According to a SLÁN survey in 1999, 10% of the adult population was obese. By 2002, the survey saw an increase to 13%, with men slightly more likely to suffer from obesity. The survey also found that reported fruit consumption had declined sharply, by almost 50%, among schoolchildren. Not only is the amount of unhealthy food being consumed increasing, the amount of healthy food being consumed is simultaneously decreasing.

Respondents from what the survey describes as the lower social classes show the highest levels of obesity. Obesity has been linked to a range of serious conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and a range of other illnesses. More than 30 medical conditions have been linked to obesity, and scientific evidence has established a strong relationship with at least 15 of those conditions. The prevalence of obesity has increased by about 10% to 40% in European countries in the past ten years according to the American Obesity Association.

In Britain, the House of Commons select committee on health is conducting an inquiry into obesity and charges that big fast-food chains and junk food manufacturers have targeted children to make profits from products that damage their health. This investigation has seen representatives from McDonald's, Pepsi, Cadbury's and other companies called to give evidence. I look forward to its final report. A report published last month by the UK Food Standards Agency found that food promotion is having an effect, especially on children's preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption. I suggest that the Government and the Chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, consider conducting a similar inquiry. Considering the amount of British television watched by Irish children, contact with the House of Commons committee could be useful. Its inquiry is considering a ban on junk food advertising during children's broadcasting and there may be a great deal for us to learn from its work.

It is important to consider the negative implications a ban like this might have for broadcasting in Ireland. Last year, just under €100 million was raised by RTE through commercial advertising and sponsorship. This represented approximately 36% of RTE's total revenue in 2002. I am not aware what proportion of this €100 million relates to children's advertising but it must be a substantial amount. The sudden loss of that revenue stream could cause severe problems for a broadcaster that already has financial difficulties. To make up that shortfall, other sources of revenue would have to be found, including a possible application for a licence fee increase. The loss of children's advertising revenue would be even more acute for the State's commercial broadcaster, TV3, which does not, as it takes every opportunity to remind us, receive any licence fee income.

Mr. Horan's thesis, to which I referred earlier, monitored Network Two children's programming over a five day period, during which 123 advertisements selling 43 distinct products, services or events were shown. Food and drink was the most common product advertised with 53.7% of total share, with McDonald's providing the most common advertisements. Any such ban will have major implications for RTE's ability to raise money. I am not saying this should prevent a ban or severe restrictions, rather we must ensure our public service broadcaster is cushioned against serious financial damage.

While I have concentrated on the issue of obesity, junk food and related matters, it is worth pointing out, especially at this time of year, one of the other key effects of children's advertising. In the run-up to Christmas, the number of advertisements for toys, dolls and games on television increases to a great extent. The pressure this can place on families, especially those already struggling to get by, is intense. So-called pester power is a well-known marketing phenomenon, where advertising is used to convert children into mini-salespeople, harassing their parents to buy a certain product.

Recently, an advertisement was held to account in the UK where the slogan for a well-known crisp company was: "I am going to pester mum for them when I get home". It is hardly the most subtle form of advertising, but some companies have a better way of doing it. By marketing some of its products as "Happy Meals" and through aggressive use of movie and cartoon tie-ins, McDonald's has found that, by playing on every child's natural love of toys and collectibles, it can, through using the child, place even more pressure on parents to buy its products. Marketing experts in the US estimate that children of 14 years of age and younger influence spending in the region of $600 billion ever year.

The president of the American company Kids "R" Us advised advertisers: "If you own this child at an early age, you can own this child for years to come." I am sure other Deputies would share my disgust with such a sentiment.

Dr. Twomey:

We live in a consumer society in which advertising is a very important feature. Advertising has been a key factor in the success of fast food outlets as measured by their profits. The supermarkets are full of canned food, much of which is sold as convenience food. Obesity is a problem in Ireland as it is in all developed societies. The wealthier a country becomes the more serious is the problem of obesity.

We should consider why people buy convenience food. They do not always buy such food because of its advertising but for its convenience. Preparing fresh food such as vegetables and getting access to fresh fruit can be time-consuming for many people, especially with the busy lives of today. It is easy to fall back on the use of convenience food such as pizzas and the canned food we see in supermarkets. When we approach an issue such as this we need to consider whether we can modify society's behaviour easily, especially when many habits have become ingrained over time.

While I am not suggesting that the smoking ban will fail, it will be interesting to see whether it succeeds. It will form an interesting parallel in determining whether trying to modify people's eating behaviour could work in similar circumstances. I do not know whether banning anything can work. It is difficult to introduce such rigid regulation in a society like ours. There would be too great an upheaval against it for it to work.

We need to consider society's behaviour in other ways. In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of children who get no exercise. Silly reasons have been offered for this such as children not being allowed to do what they want in playgrounds because of the cost of insurance or getting supervision for them. Some children have very poor diets often because mothers, many of whom are single, are out working during the day and find it hard to get the time to prepare food. Some children have irregular meals, may leave home without breakfast and not eat until late in the evening when their parents return home.

Deputy Eamon Ryan pointed out that as a parent he finds it difficult to keep children away from television. If there is a problem with television advertising, even though it is a very difficult issue to tackle we all have parental responsibility in this regard. While Governments cannot change society, they can influence how society works. The Government has a considerable role to play in the issues raised in this Bill. The fundamental issue is to get to these children when they are very young and bring in a regime that allows them to take exercise in primary school and ensures participation in PE is more rigidly enforced. Through civic classes, children should be taught the importance of maintaining good health throughout life. Such issues would have a longer lasting and more beneficial effect on our society. However we have always ignored preventive medicine carried out through the educational system, which would be successful.

I commend this Bill to the House as it will help to highlight the importance of this issue – it might get some coverage outside the House. We as legislators should make serious inroads in tackling this long-term problem for Irish society, which could have a tremendous effect in years to come.

Mr. Connolly:

I support this timely and imaginative Bill. The thrust of the Bill is to restrict the broadcast of advertising targeted at children. I presume the positive action to protect public health referred to in section 2 of the Bill would consist principally of health warnings about foods high in salt, sugar and fat. An obesity time bomb continues to tick away even as the Teletubbies are enlisted to promote particular brands of burgers. I have heard a description of a doughnut as a "heart attack with a hole in the middle". Exploitative advertising aimed at children influences a multi-million euro market every year. Advertising targeted at children is enhanced by technology honed by child psychologists – I sometimes wonder about the ethics of psychologists doing such work for money – and brought to children through the expenditure of millions of corporate euro each week.

Schemes advertised heavily in schools, which reward schools with sports equipment or books for consuming more of a company's product, should be scrutinised. There is something morally wrong with this. Many junk foods contain more fat, sugar and salt than is recommended. The level of obesity is rising and constitutes a major health time bomb, which could lead to an epidemic of diabetes in children. It is predicted that in parts of Great Britain there will be a tenfold risk in diabetic-related problems.

In Britain a study in 2001 found that half of the advertisements during television programmes were from food companies, which compares with one fifth during adult programming. Many advertisements promoted soft drinks, savoury snacks, confectionery and fast food. While we are concentrating on the food aspect, we often overlook soft drinks, which are targeted at children and do considerable damage to teeth. We need an educational programme about soft drinks and the damage they do.

In Britain when there was an outcry about the level of teenage smoking, the tobacco firms voluntarily agreed to stop advertising around schools and above newsagents before the Government finally banned cigarette advertising. Perhaps television companies should introduce some cigarette-type protocols to limit the effects of advertisements.

While children are impressed by what they see on television, parents are also often impressed by what they see. When they want to give their child a special treat, they reach for a branded chocolate bar or the famous doughnut, or they take them out to the fast food chain advertised by the Teletubbies. We should consider that parents are also influenced.

As we approach Christmas, children's advertising reaches its peak. Intolerable pressure is placed on parents at this time of year. Mothers and fathers are locked in an intense and increasingly unfair competition with advertisers and marketers. The advertising of all sorts of toys that are generally expensive is pumped at children, which is grossly unfair.

In Sweden all television advertising to children below 12 has been banned since 1991. Sweden also outlaws all advertising during television programmes that last 30 minutes or less. They even ban musical jingles if the country's consumer ombudsman deems them to be subliminal or stealth advertising or surreptitious promotion for the sponsors, generally leading toy companies. There are different ways to send a message and advertisers and television companies need to be more aware of this. There is a ban on advertising within five minutes of children's television programmes in Belgium, Denmark and Greece, and Norway, Italy and Poland are considering similar restrictions.

Broadcasters argue that the revenue generated in the EU each year by television advertisements for children's products amounts to between €670 million and €1 billion, which they say is essential for the creation of quality children's programmes.

Trans-national advertisements also entice children to purchase replica football kits and scarves of other countries' football teams as well as their own local ones. The porosity of national borders when it comes to broadcast signals is a major problem for various programmes. Even if there were restrictions on advertising here, we are inundated by broadcasts from Sky Television and other broadcasters in Northern Ireland and Britain. Even if the entire EU were to outlaw children's advertising, satellite broadcasts and Internet web casts from outside the EU would ensure that these borders would be breached, as is happening. Television influences children leading to desire and purchase intent in most cases. Television is only one of the media through which children receive advertising messages and influences. This Bill seeks to ensure that broadcasting media adopt a responsible attitude to advertising aimed at children. I am happy to support it unreservedly.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern):

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Flynn.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern:

I am baffled that the Bill has been published at this time.

Mr. Boyle:

There is nothing new in that.

Mr. D. Ahern:

Some time ago, I instructed the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, which is the independent regulator, to draw up codes on children's advertising. If the independent regulator thinks it proper, these codes may recommend a complete ban on children's advertising.

Mr. Boyle:

If the House legislates.

Mr. D. Ahern:

The codes will not be woolly and unenforceable. They will form part of the broadcasting contract issued to all broadcasters by the BCI. If broadcasters refuse to abide by the codes, it will be possible to force them off the air. The BCI will forward the draft codes to me in the new year.

Given the fact that we are in the latter stages of drawing up codes for children's advertising, why has the Green Party sought to introduce the Bill in the middle of the BCI's consultation process? Why has the party sought to pre-empt and undermine the process? Why has it sought to undermine the submissions of other interested parties which do not have the same opportunities to use the House to force their views through the legislative route? Why does the Green Party seek to undermine the independent regulator established by the Oireachtas by subverting its deliberations in the House? The answer, clearly, is that the Opposition is attempting to resort to classic policymaking on the hoof. I say that with due respect to the spirit in which this matter has been raised.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Minister accept a brief question?

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy will have a chance to reply.

Mr. D. Ahern:

Children's advertising and the wider question of broadcasters' responsibilities to children are important issues that require consideration and debate and should be addressed responsibly over a period of time which allows the public to make its views known.

Mr. Gormley:

The Minister will kick to touch again.

Mr. D. Ahern:

Every Member shares my view that, as legislators, we should take appropriate and adequate measures to safeguard the interests of children. On this side of the House, we claim no monopoly on virtue in this regard. I am unclear about what the Deputy hopes to achieve by introducing the Bill at this time. If we, as legislators, had failed to address the issues which are the subject of the Bill, I would understand why we were debating it. We have addressed these issues in section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2001.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

There are no details.

Mr. D. Ahern:

In short, the Bill is about political expediency. It places public relations before policy.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

That is a disgraceful comment.

Mr. D. Ahern:

Broadcasting is subject to a greater degree of regulation at national and European level than other media. Broadcasting plays a central and important role in our society. Its power and influence is such that, through their Parliament and Government, the people have provided a reasonable level of regulation.

A number of disappointing aspects to the Green Party's legislation are obvious if one reads through it. It fails to acknowledge the ongoing process of policy development by the BCI which is being undertaken at my request. The Bill is informed by the philosophy that the primary public policy issues raised by broadcasting advertising, specifically advertising to children, involve physical health and toy advertising. Physical health and pester power issues are arguably a small part of the broader and necessary public policy debate on the values children acquire from the media as a whole and from broadcasters in particular.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

The World Health Organisation does not agree.

Mr. Gormley:

The Minister should allow Deputy Eamon Ryan to speak.

Mr. D. Ahern:

I did not interrupt Deputy Eamon Ryan while he was having his say. I would be grateful if he did not interrupt me.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Minister accept a question?

An Ceann Comhairle:

Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

The Minister will not accept a question.

Mr. D. Ahern:

The Green Party Bill also disappoints by failing to address the need for effective policy solutions in this area. Like adults, children are exposed to increasing amounts of advertising in all forms of media and in the ambient environment. Much of that advertisement pushes products which it can be argued do not serve the long-term interests of the individual child or of society. Equally, advertising in adult broadcast media generates values and messages of doubtful long-term value.

The assumption that regulation of children's advertising is the only or even the principal public policy issue raised by children's broadcasting is arguable. The content of children's programming is doing as much if not more damage to children as advertising. Many children's programmes reflect the deeply materialistic world in which many of the protections traditionally available to children are neither respected nor adhered to by many programme makers. Much programming features astonishing amounts of violence and an unhealthy consumer ethic.

Children's programming is a clear reflection of the mores of adult entertainment in a broadcasting sector driven increasingly by the bottom line. It is increasingly the case that children's programming is as much a part of the advertising hard sell as the advertisements themselves. We should ask how many costume changes feature before the end of the opening sequence of credits for "Sabrina the Teenage Witch". What does "Cribs" on MTV say about the values of the society to which it asks young people to aspire? Does pop culture worship youth to the point at which it is arguably leading to the early sexualisation of pre-teens?

Notwithstanding these programming considerations, addressing advertising aimed at children presents major challenges. Legislators attempting to deal with the issue face a wall of money, an industry built around that and an increasingly globalised broadcasting sector in which the power of national regulation is being minimised. In the USA, $2 billion is spent annually on advertising to children. More significantly, advertising spending aimed at children has increased by 2,000% over the past ten years. This trend is a function of children's influence on family spending which is estimated to have grown in the USA from $5 billion in 1960 to $290 billion in 2001.

A wealth of research has highlighted the relationship between the advertising of unhealthy products and the view of young people as potential consumers of them. We should not be surprised that the US experience has increasingly become the benchmark for other OECD countries. The social issue is whether young people have the linguistic and cognitive competence to evaluate advertisements. While adults usually understand when they are confronted with a persuasive act, younger children often cannot distinguish between programmes and advertising. Generally, children do not understand the purpose of advertising. They do not interpret language used by advertisers in the same way as adults.

The view of the Swedish Government on this matter is quite clear. Its spokesman has said that television advertising aimed at children does not stand the most fundamental rule of advertising ethics. According to this rule, advertising should be easily recognisable as such by those who form its target audience.

Mr. Gormley:

In that case, why not follow the example of the Swedish Government?

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Gormley had an opportunity to make his contribution.

Mr. D. Ahern:

We must find a policy instrument which addresses the issue we are trying to resolve. Can Deputy Gormley please allow me to finish? He should have a little respect for democracy in the House. I am as entitled as he is to speak without interruption.

Mr. Boyle:

The Minister never heckles.

Mr. D. Ahern:

The Deputy should have some manners.

Mr. Gormley:

I saw the Minister up on his hind legs heckling the other day.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Green Party has been given 40 minutes to make its contribution. The Minister has a limited amount of time and is entitled to the courtesy of a hearing without interruption.

Mr. D. Ahern:

We must do more than assume restrictions on children's advertisements will be effective in and of themselves. This is an especially difficult area for the European Union.

Through the Broadcasting Act 2001, the Houses of the Oireachtas determined that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland should have responsibility for drawing up new codes and rules on advertising and tastes and decency in programme material. In November 2002, I wrote to the commission in accordance with section 19(1) of the Act and directed it to prepare codes specifying standards to be complied with and rules and practices to be observed. These standards, rules and practices were to be applied to the taste and decency of programme material, the subject of a broadcasting service or sound broadcasting service, advertising, teleshopping material, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion employed in any visual or sound broadcasting service. They were also to be applied to advertising, teleshopping material, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion employed in any broadcasting service which relate to matters likely to be of direct or indirect interest to children. In accordance with section 19(2) of the Act, I specified that the commission should give priority to the preparation of these codes under section 19(1)(c) which relates to advertising directed at children. The commission has acted swiftly.

Reference was made earlier to consultation on health issues. Section 19(7) of the Broadcasting Act requires the BCI to take account of research and guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Children, which is a body with vested functions in respect of children, and other agencies.

In accordance with my direction, the commission has commenced work to prepare the new codes and rules and has given precedence to the matter of children's advertising. It would be useful to the House to outline the steps the commission has taken.

The commission has outlined three phases for the drawing up of the new children's advertising code. In phase one, the commission undertook a number of activities. It provided information and raised public awareness of the legislative requirement to develop a children's advertising code and began quantitative research into children's viewing patterns. It also engaged in the first phase of an extensive public consultation process and asked for views on the its proposal to use a phased approach to developing the code. It sought a definition of key terms including the terms "child" and "children's advertising" and asked for views on the framework for the code or the headings that would be used to develop it. The commission provided 12 headings for consideration and asked whether the headings identified were appropriate. It also asked whether there were other headings that should be included. This first phase of the development of the code ended in July of this year.

The decisions reached by the commission took into account the 20 submissions received in addition to discussion and debate at the commission's board meetings in June and July of this year. A summary of the outcomes from the first phase of consultation are available on the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland website.

The development of the children's advertising code is in its second phase and is due to be completed early next year. In this phase, the commission will again raise public awareness of its work in developing the children's advertising code. It will gather views on the content of the code using a second public consultation document. It will consult with children using a children's consultation document and a children's consultation event, proposed to take place in January of next year. It will publish quantitative research into children's viewing patterns and may also undertake qualitative research should this be deemed necessary or desirable.

In the third and final phase, the commission will produce a draft version of the children's advertising code. This will be based on the views expressed in the consultation process and its own decisions arising from this process. It will publish and circulate this document in the first quarter of next year. The public will be asked for its views and following this, the code will be finalised in the summer of next year.

As I have outlined in my replies to parliamentary questions, I will not make a submission to the commission. It is clear that the commission has approached its task in a systematic and comprehensive fashion and I congratulate it on its work.

It is proper that the House continues to have an input into the important and complex matter of advertising rules. Having legislated on the matter, the House should continue to have the opportunity to consider how this matter is progressed. While I always welcome debate, I do not consider that the Bill is necessary to provide such an opportunity. The 2001 Act places an obligation on the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to report to me on the performance of its functions in drawing up new codes and rules on children's advertising. I expect to receive the report of the commission later this week. In accordance with the Act I will lay copies of the report before this House and the Seanad. If the Houses wish to discuss the report, they are free to do so.

The commission has consulted widely and undertaken some preliminary research. The extensive public consultation has ensured that there is more than an adequate opportunity for organisations and agencies representing the interests of children to have an input in the process.

The Bill also seeks to amend RTE's mandate as the national public service broadcaster. The addition of a new and specific obligation to the definition of the public service character of the RTE national broadcasting service is unnecessary given the wide-ranging nature of the existing definition. This includes an over-arching obligation to "entertain, inform and educate" as well as to provide programmes of "news and current affairs". The extension of the legislative characterisation of public service broadcasting in a piecemeal fashion is undesirable because of the range of equally laudable public policy objectives which will inevitably be ignored by this process.

I will bring forward proposals for legislation next year relating to the establishment of the new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the restructuring of RTE. This will allow for a broader consideration of what should be encompassed by the definition of public service broadcasting. It is appropriate, in terms of quality of programming, that the bar for RTE is raised high.

The provisions of the Bill suggest, however, that RTE should also be required to adhere to higher standards regarding measures addressed at protecting children. The implication is that less would be expected of other broadcasters. I cannot accept this. Whatever rules the commission decides upon will apply equally to all broadcasters licensed in Ireland. Anything else would be indefensible. Where measures are introduced to protect children, they must be implemented.

There is also real tension between the current independent mandate of the public service broadcaster and the need or desirability that the broadcaster reflect public policy objectives in its programming. The proposals in the legislation ignore the fundamental long-term challenge for Irish policymakers seeking to influence advertising regulation in the EU.

Cross-border services such as satellite broadcasters are regulated from their country of origin, the United Kingdom in the case of Sky. It is therefore a matter under European law for the United Kingdom regulator, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, to determine appropriate standards with respect to advertising issues within broad guidelines set out in the directive at EU level. Increasingly, the Irish broadcasting market is being driven by cross-border services. The Nickelodeon service for children is a relevant example in this respect.

Unless the framework rules governing EU broadcasting legislation are changed, there is no way that individual member states, acting alone, can regulate incoming cross-border broadcasting services. National regulation alone would leave domestic broadcasters at a significant disadvantage in an increasingly competitive marketplace. An increase in the drift of viewers to cross-border services would, in these circumstances, wholly undermine the purpose of stricter regulations on domestic broadcasters. The Television Without Frontiers directive, under review at EU level, contains the framework rules for regulation of EU broadcasting activities.

I am pressing strongly, as part of that review, to allow a modification in the rules governing content regulation to allow the country of destination of service to regulate content where programming is intended solely for that market or where insert advertising facilities, designed specifically for that market, are used by the cross-border broadcaster. It is expected that the larger member states will strongly resist any attempt to depart from or modify the existing country of origin rule for regulation of content in the EU marketplace. Ireland has support from countries like Sweden, Belgium and Austria on its position.

I cannot support the Bill. Its contents might form a useful submission to the Broadcasting Commission in the context of the public consultation in which it is engaged. The Bill, which is in effect a submission, would not strengthen the existing legislative provisions in this area. It is cynical, short-sighted and, as a policy move, obtuse and self-serving. Clearly, it is policy on the hoof.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Minister take a brief question?

Mr. Gormley:

The Minister has some cheek. He serves the most cynical, short-sighted and self-serving Government I have seen.

Mr. D. Ahern:

The Deputy has some neck to criticise this side of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Gormley had his opportunity. Allow Deputy O'Flynn to make his contribution.

Mr. O'Flynn:

I have always had time for Deputy Gormley and I have respect for Deputy Eamon Ryan and work well with him in the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, he has missed the boat with this Bill because a new children's advertising code being drawn up by the BCI will be available in the new year. As part of a broadcasting contract issued to all broadcasters by the BCI, all Irish broadcasters will have to abide by this code or face the prospect of going off air. The BCI can include whatever measures it sees fit to protect children in the code, including an outright ban of children's advertising. While the BCI is finalising the code, the Green Party is trying to anticipate the process, and I agree with my colleague the Minister that this smacks of knee-jerk politics.

The new children's advertising code will be an important blueprint and the draft will allow for an input by the public before finalisation in the summer. It is important that we reiterate what the Minister said in his speech and outline again the process the BCI will take. I am aware of the BCI outline from its reports on the Internet, as is Deputy Ryan. The commission has outlined three phases for the drawing up of the new children's advertising code. In phase one the commission undertook research into children's viewing habits and outlined broad headings to be covered by the code.

The development of the code is in the second phase which is due to be completed early next year. As the Minister has said, the commission will raise public awareness of its work in developing the children's advertising code. It will gather views on the content of the code using a second public consultation document. It will consult children by means of a children's consultation document and a children's consultation event, proposed to take place in January of next year. The Minister said that it will publish quantitative research into children's viewing patterns. The commission may also undertake qualitative research if it is deemed necessary or desirable. A draft version of the children's advertising code, based on the views expressed in the consultation process and the BCI's decisions arising from the process, will be published in the first quarter of 2004.

Mr. Boyle:

What is the Deputy's personal opinion?

Mr. O'Flynn:

The code will be finalised next summer, after the public has been asked for its views.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Does the Government have an opinion?

Mr. O'Flynn:

In the Broadcasting Act 2001—

Mr. D. Ahern:

This Bill has been brought forward in the last 24 hours.

Mr. O'Flynn:

The Minister is quite correct.

Mr. D. Ahern:

We did not see it until 4 o'clock yesterday.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

The Minister should stand up for the things he believes in.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy O'Flynn should be allowed to speak without interruption. Deputies Eamon Ryan and Boyle will have an opportunity to respond tomorrow.

Mr. O'Flynn:

The Oireachtas determined in the Broadcasting Act 2001 that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will be responsible for drawing up new codes and rules on advertising and on tastes and decency of programme material. It is important to state that one of the functions of the commission, under the 2001 Act, is to report to the Minister on the performance of its functions in drawing up new codes and rules on children's advertising. The Minister said he expects to receive the commission's report this week, copies of which will be laid before the Dáil and the Seanad.

I do not have any difficulty in making time available in the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for a discussion on the report when it is available. Such a procedure would be better than taking up the time of the House, which is the effect of this motion.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

The Minister would not attend such a meeting. He would be in Switzerland or elsewhere.

Mr. O'Flynn:

As a valuable contributor to the committee, Deputy Eamon Ryan knows how to ensure that such discussions take place at committee level. At the risk of inviting a retort from the Opposition, this Bill brought forward by the Green Party will contribute zilch to the powers of the BCI.

Advertising encompasses almost every aspect of daily life, to the extent that most people are hardly aware of it. They assume that advertising has no effect on them. Contrary to popular belief, however, advertising exerts an enormous influence on our thoughts, attitudes, perceptions and actions. It could be argued that one of the most impressive accomplishments of the advertising industry is to make believe we are not affected by advertisements.

Mr. Boyle:

It gets people to vote for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Flynn:

If advertisers were not aware that advertising influences people and children, why would companies spend ridiculous amounts of money on it each year?

My colleagues in the Fianna Fáil research office, Mr. Seán Fitzpatrick and Ms Niamh Cooper, watched "The Den" on Network 2 at 4.15 p.m. on Monday to see what was being advertised. There were advertisements for children's toys and films. To the amazement of my colleagues, however, perfumes were advertised during two separate advertising breaks.

Ms Enright:

Change the channel.

Mr. O'Flynn:

The advertisements showed women and men who were scantily clad and extremely thin.

Mr. Boyle:

Could the media monitoring unit not have done that?

Mr. O'Flynn:

I do not believe that young girls should be a target for perfume sales. The images portrayed in the advertisements are extremely damaging. The anxiety experienced by girls who feel they are unattractive is arguably one of the most pervasive and damaging consequences of advertising. One body type – that of a very tall, thin woman – is almost always presented in the media and in advertisements. Such a woman would meet the criteria for anorexia, as she would be 15% below the normal weight. In reality, this unhealthy body shape is unattainable for 99% of women. This is the reason for the incredible proliferation of the weight loss, fashion and cosmetics industries, which are among the largest and most profitable consumer industries.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Deputy say if he believes there should be restrictions on advertising aimed at children?

Mr. O'Flynn:

A recent study conducted by the school of medicine at Stanford University showed that watching less television may curb children's appetites for new toys. The small study indicated that reducing television viewing may help to reduce the influence of advertising on children's behaviour. Children see approximately 40,000 commercials a year, which is twice the number seen by children in the 1970s. Half the commercials in question are toys advertisements, according to the study.

According to the Canadian Toy Testing Council, exaggeration is the greatest area of concern in respect of toy advertisements in Canada. Young children often think toys can do more than they can because of the way they are portrayed in advertisements. These concerns have led some jurisdictions to ban all advertising aimed at children. Print and broadcast advertising aimed at children under 13 has been banned in Quebec. Sweden, which has banned advertisements aimed at children under 12, is lobbying EU member states to adopt similar policies. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has expressed similar views tonight.

Parents should be concerned about the effect of excessive materialism on the development of children's self-image and values. Although children's identities should not be defined by their consumer habits, they see themselves reflected in the media as consumers. Advertisers are targeting younger and younger children with this message. The marketing of merchandise based on the popular pre-school television programmes "Barney" and "Teletubbies" marked the beginning of identifying toddlers as a consumer market. I must confess that I have never seen the programmes in question, as I do not have a child under the age of 17. A healthy society raises children to be responsible citizens rather than mere consumers.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Government ban the forms of advertising criticised by the Deputy?

Mr. O'Flynn:

The creation of healthy and happy families involves spending time together rather than spending money.

During one of the good contributions from the Opposition side earlier, we heard that fast food chains spend significant amounts of money each year on advertising, much of which is aimed at children. The fast food industry uses methods other than traditional commercials to target children directly. Fast food restaurants offer incentives such as playgrounds, contests, clubs, games, free toys and other merchandise related to movies and television shows. A company which produces toys based on the World Wrestling Federation encourages children as young as four to use their play sets "to bash and dump opponents senseless with an array of street fighting accessories".

The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will consider next year a crackdown on the use by broadcasters of competitions, product placement and similar subliminal advertising. This issue will be prioritised as part of the first overhaul in eight years of the BCI's general advertising code. The overhaul will start this year and will be completed by mid-2004. The commission believes that the code needs to be adjusted to reflect the increasing reliance by broadcasters on commercial sponsorship for individual programmes and on competitions with large prizes.

Changes in legislation governing alcohol advertising will be reflected in the new code. The changes will follow the BCI's first children's advertising code, which is due to be put in place early next year.

We need to be conscious of the dangers of simply driving children's advertising from Irish broadcasters to satellite and cable television channels which are widely available here. I refer to Sky and Nickelodeon, which the Minister mentioned earlier as a dedicated children's channel. Mounting competition for advertising revenue from Sky has already been eating heavily into the advertising income of TV3 and RTE. I await the BCI report with considerable interest. I urge Deputy Eamon Ryan, even at this late stage, to save the time of the House by withdrawing this Bill, which is a mere duplication of what will be done by the BCI at the instruction of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Mr. Boyle:

The Minister has a "hands-off" approach.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

The Minister has said that he has nothing to do with it.

Mr. O'Flynn:

I assure Deputy Eamon Ryan that the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will discuss the new code with the BCI when it is published next year. How much time do I have left, a Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy has almost one minute remaining.

Mr. Boyle:

The Deputy can fill the remaining time with advertisements.

Mr. O'Flynn:

I ask Deputy Boyle—

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

Will the Deputy use his remaining time to answer a straight question?

Mr. O'Flynn:

—to give us some credit for what has been achieved in the House.

The Deputy took a long time to get in, and it is important that he remain to contribute to the legislation instead of putting forward Bills which are mere duplicates of others. He and his party should try to come up with something original for us to debate in the House during Private Members' time.

Mr. Eamon Ryan:

We did it just to hear the Deputy's views.

Mr. D. Ahern:

They lecture us as if we on this side of the House had no knowledge.

Mr. O'Flynn:

The parents of young children have an important role to play in protecting them from invasive marketing and educating them about advertising from a very early age. Research has shown that children aged between two and five cannot differentiate between regular television programming and commercials. Young children are especially vulnerable to misleading advertising and do not begin to understand that advertisements are not always true until they are eight.

Mr. Kehoe:

I would like to share time with Deputies Enright and Crawford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kehoe:

I welcome the Bill to the House. In the last few months before Christmas, we see a great deal of advertising on our television screens, especially for toys. It is very worrying, since the advertising is now carrying through from September. The most vulnerable are being targeted, namely, our children. The Minister said that we all have children, but I have none of whom I am aware, but I appreciate that other Deputies do. Children are most vulnerable, with advertisements targeted at them, but their parents are equally vulnerable. Deputy Ryan spoke about a child seeing a toy or some other item on television that he or she wants. The child wants to get that toy or whatever equipment it might be because he or she is pressurised into getting it.

We need powers to protect the most vulnerable and I hope the Bill is passed. I am very disappointed the Minister will not support it. He was not clear in regard to what he spoke about. There are many fast-food outlets, and every sort of advertisement has been shown over the past few months. Some Deputies spoke about obesity, a very important issue which affects us all, particularly our children. There are many television channels, such as cartoon networks, Sky, RTE 1, Network 2 or whatever, and children watch them from the moment they return from school until they are taken away to do their homework, after which they are straight back in front of the television screen again.

Deputy O'Flynn mentioned the many advertisements between those programmes, be they for perfume for the ladies, toys for the children or fast-food outlets. I do not mind the advertising of products – that must be done to make people aware of them, but it is being overdone. Someone spoke about football shirts and related matters, but what are the advertisers giving back to local communities? I do not see McDonald's or any of the toy stores giving anything back to the local GAA club or community. We always depend on the same people. It is very important that we see what is happening in terms of advertisers bullying our young children. The parents feel the brunt of such advertising because they are harassed by their children into buying the products.

It is very important that a measure is brought in to stop such advertisements, be they for junk food, toys or whatever. As someone said, advertising is a very powerful tool. The run-up to Christmas is the time when people are most vulnerable and they go out to buy equipment or toys. It is important that we introduce strong legislation to stop such advertising. Deputy Gormley said that this would eventually cost the State in years to come, through obesity, diabetes or heart disease. We should look very seriously at the matter and ensure that such advertising is not allowed every year because it is aimed at the most vulnerable in the community.

My party and I support this Bill. I hope that something will be done to stop the type of advertisement that has been shown recently.

Ms Enright:

I broadly welcome the Private Members' motion tabled by Deputy Eamon Ryan of the Green Party, particularly for the opportunity it gives us to discuss the matter. It is timely because of the season and the publication today of the national health and lifestyle survey. I have difficulty with the concept of codes as opposed to the imposition of a statutory obligation or duty. We should be clear that they are different.

The motion tonight is intended to ensure that certain things are included in the code currently being drawn up. I looked at the questions that the BCI has posed for children and parents on its website. They are comprehensive, but it is very clear that there are certain matters about which it has not yet made up its mind. I am sure the Green Party will speak for itself, but the thrust of the motion seems to be to ensure that certain matters are included. The advertising standards code states that children should not be made to feel inferior or unpopular by not buying the advertised product and that they should not be encouraged to pester their parents to buy it. That code has clearly failed and is not working.

It is plain that advertisers would not advertise if it did not work. The problem arises throughout the year, but it is more acute at Christmas. Last year's toy show on "The Late Late Show" was the biggest money raiser ever in terms of advertisements, with 30-second slots reaching premium fees of €14,000. Only the world cup advertising fees were higher. No company will spend that much money unless it gets a definite return. The pressure being put on parents is acute. It is not the only influence since children put a great deal of pressure on each other, even without advertising. They have to have a specific brand or type of trainer. However, advertising and branding have a significant impact. We are not meeting like with like. Parents have no way of protecting themselves or their children. It is them against massive media and companies.

Those big businesses employ child psychologists and marketing specialists to see how they can best get in there and get their products purchased. Reports can be purchased by companies on such subjects as marketing to "tweens", which covers the age between young children and teenagers. There is even a report available on the web – I believe that the price is $1,200 – on marketing to pre-school children. That is what we are dealing with. Those reports are available and usable everywhere. The chief strategy officer of one such company has even written reports on the methods that can be employed to get children to persuade their parents. One was called The Nag Factor and another The Fine Art of Whining. This person advises companies to give children a good reason or argument that they can use against their parents to get the product that they want, such as that it will help them with learning or homework. We must examine that type of advertising.

The National College of Art and Design has stated that children under five years do not distinguish between programmes and advertising. That can be interpreted as saying that advertising can send out a subliminal message to children of that age. Children aged between five and eight, as Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned, have no comprehension of the persuasive intentions of advertising. That makes them extremely vulnerable, and they must be protected by stricter regulations. The BCI has gone some way towards that in that it has taken the time to ask questions, not only of adults but of children, and I welcome that.

The motion is timely as it relates to food advertising. Today's report by the National Nutritional Surveillance Centre shows that obesity levels among the population as a whole have risen by 3%. Today's reports in the British media show that doctors see cases of diabetes brought on by poor diet and lack of exercise in children as young as 13. The number of children with weight problems has more than doubled in the past two decades alone, which is significant. I do not say that advertising makes people obese, but it creates a desire in children to get their hands on the advertised products, whether they are toys or food.

RTE's figures indicate that pre-Christmas toy advertisements made up approximately 30% of the advertising directed at children last year and advertisements for cereals and confectionery accounted for approximately 25% each. The type of advertising being used in these contexts is particularly persuasive, especially when it is linked to promotions run by fast food chains promoting popular children's films such as "Harry Potter", which place characters from the film in children's meals. This is a different type of advertising and it must be tackled. It is important that the Bill relates specifically to the food sector.

Television companies need to give serious consideration to adverts which promote the stations themselves, especially those advertising films and programmes they are showing. For example, it does not make sense that an advertisement for the adult film "Se7en" was broadcast at 5.30 p.m. The film had to be shown after the watershed, yet it was being advertised before the watershed. This issue needs to be changed because it is unacceptable. I am not sure if the television stations edit the worst bits from the film when they show the advertisement at 5.30 p.m. I am sure they do, but children see the advertisements at this time and will want to see the film later that night. I accept that parental responsibility is important but, like my colleague, I do not have children and therefore cannot criticise parents about how they use the television. Nonetheless, the television should not be used as a babysitting tool. I understand it can be difficult to police children's television viewing, therefore we must make it easier for parents to do so.

The Minister alluded to the fact that our regulation of Irish television channels does not prevent children being exposed to other channels. The basic digital package offered by NTL in the Dublin area has nine children's channels. Therefore, children are being exposed to much more advertising than previously, as a result of which toy advertising on Irish channels has fallen. The Government should raise this issue at EU level to ensure that the measures in place are enforced on a broader basis.

Mr. Crawford:

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. In his speech, the Minister explained why the Bill has come before the House, that he is dealing with the issue and will have it dealt with shortly. However, there is no reason the Bill should not be discussed by a group within the Opposition. It is only right and proper this major issue is discussed.

The main item on the agenda in the Oireachtas for the next few days is the Social Welfare Bill 2003. As a former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, knows more than most about problems in this sector. The broader population may suffer from children's demands as a result of advertising, but no group suffers as much as those on social welfare benefits or low incomes. Many feel they must "keep up with the Joneses" and parents whose children attend the same schools as better-off children find themselves under tremendous pressure to provide similar toys and goodies of all kinds which they see advertised and know about because television is now in most homes. It is correct that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is moving towards a proposal which can deal with this issue in a constructive manner. Multichannel television is available in many areas, and regulating Irish television will not solve all the problems. Nevertheless, that is not a reason for us not to try to control our own media.

Some time ago, my older brother travelled through the United States with his uncle who was always angry about advertising on television. When the uncle developed a headache, he went into a drugstore to buy a tablet and, when my brother asked him what tablets he bought, he gave the brand name. When my brother asked him why he bought that brand, the uncle told him it was because they had been advertised. Therefore, even someone who did not want to listen to advertising was persuaded to buy a specific brand. If that is the case for an aged adult, it must put tremendous pressure on children to behave similarly.

Although I am not a parent, I have come across families who, in the run-up to Christmas, have failed to get some social welfare payment or other, for example, the Christmas bonus. Some of them have come to my door begging because they had been relying on the payment to buy a certain toy for Christmas. They are desperate and I know they have approached the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others to try to meet the children's demands. This is a real issue.

I am a diabetic and was told clearly it was because of obesity. The issue of food advertising is important in this context. It is accepted in the US and elsewhere that obesity causes diabetes and other problems. Food companies are prepared to spend significant amounts of money on advertising to persuade children that their way is the only way. I have often come across parents trying to get their children to eat wholesome good food but find themselves pressured into buying crisps or Kentucky Fried Chicken. I should not mention a specific company in case I am accused of advertising. This is a real danger.

The Bill should highlight these issues and encourage the Minister to move forward and ensure his proposals are introduced as quickly as possible. I have been a Member of the House for long enough to have seen many Private Members' Bills and motions condemned by the Government which told us everything would be sorted out in a matter of weeks or months. We do not want to see this happen again. We can see what the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes has done, although the danger of cigarette advertising has been taken seriously and there are bans in place. However, many young girls in particular are smoking more than ever, which makes one wonder what this debate is about.

Although it may not be as relevant as the other issues referred to, the advertising of alcohol and its use to make young people believe that, unless they have tried every drink under the sun, they have not lived is extremely serious. One of the issues which annoyed me most about the budget debate was when the Tánaiste effectively pointed out that jobs in the drinks industry were more important than people's lives. We have serious problems with binge drinking which is caused by mass advertising of these products. I object to this and reject it. We must do everything possible to ensure that advertising which is of little benefit to the people is curtailed.

Debate adjourned.