I propose to share time with Deputies Carty, Cassidy and Browne.
Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Children are surrounded by advertising. On television, in magazines, at the movies, on-line and on billboards children are encouraged to consume and consume they do. Not only do children influence the purchases their parents make, they spend a great deal of their own money from allowances and part-time jobs on the latest fashions, the coolest new video games and their favourite snacks. This is no doubt music to advertisers' ears. After all, they advertise in the hope of being able to shape desires, influence preferences, change buying habits and create brand loyalty.
One wonders if advertisers are aware that their advertisements have an impact on the health of children. Research exists in key areas which links advertisements to serious health concerns regarding children. From smoking to body image, there is strong evidence that advertising influences children's habits and attitudes. It is estimated the average child in the USA sees more than 20,000 commercials every year which is at least 55 per day. Children spend a daily average of four hours and 40 minutes in front of a screen of some kind. Of this, two and a half hours are spent watching television. In the USA, 47% of children have a television set in their bedroom.
At six months, the age at which they are imitating simple sounds such as "Mama", babies are forming mental images of corporate logos and mascots. According to recent marketing industry studies, a person's brand loyalty may begin as early as two years old. I was amazed when a colleague told me recently that her year old child recognised the McDonald's logo. At three years of age and before they can read, one in five American children is already making specific requests for brand-name products. Experts say a lifetime customer may be worth $100,000 to a retailer which makes cradle-to-grave marketing strategies valuable.
I commend the Minister, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources all of whom are well aware of the problem and working together to address it. I request all parties to be patient to get this right.
The Minister has taken steps to address this matter through the implementation of the Broadcasting Act 2001. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has investigated advertising and brought forward proposals. It has sought and received submissions from the public. It is ingenuous of the Green Party to bring forward its Bill when it knows the Minister has done a great deal of work in this area already. The results of this work will be apparent in the near future.
There are many forms of advertising besides broadcast advertising. Toy stores put colourful catalogues through letterboxes and large companies place full-page advertisements in newspapers. Children read these assiduously. They will be taken to the bedroom and studied long after the television is switched off. Should there not be legislation to address this issue? Those advertisements put tremendous pressure on parents, especially at this time of the year.
The preparation of a children's advertising code was deemed the first important step to be undertaken by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. The Broadcasting Act 2001 recognised the importance of advertising directed at children and introduced for the first time the concept of a separate children's advertising code. The BCI is required to prioritise the development of the code, which will result in a set of regulations to guide advertisers and broadcasters. The commencement of this process represents the first major initiative of the BCI in the area of programming and advertising standards. Interest in the code has gone far beyond those in the advertising and broadcasting sectors.
The pressure placed on parents to purchase designer brands, toy advertising and the link between advertising and alcohol consumption by young people, have been popular media themes over the last few years. Strong arguments have been presented on each of these issues by interests on both sides of the debate. The advertising in question should not be broadcast when young children are watching television. There is little point in banning advertising on RTE and TV3 when British-based stations can beam in what they like. We cannot govern what Mr. Rupert Murdoch advertises as his channels do not broadcast from within our jurisdiction.
The Swedish Government has gone all the way and banned advertising aimed at those under 12 years. The Swedes must now deal with the problem of stations being established on satellite platforms with the specific intent of beaming into their country. These satellite broadcasters use station platforms which are subject to regulation in the UK where no similar restriction on advertising to children exists.
We should not forget that children are interested in Playstations and DVDs as well as in watching television. These interests also lead to obesity. Allowing children to sit around all day, eating crisps, drinking pop and pushing buttons is bad for them. The problem is not the drawing up of new rules, it is making them stick. If children migrate to satellite stations, the national regulations will be ineffective. This is what makes the implementation of the European Union's Television Without Frontiers Directive so important. I commend the Minister on the work he has done.
How much time do I have?
It depends on how much of the remaining 23 minutes the Deputy will give to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.
It is right that I should give way to my more senior colleague, so I will speak for less than ten minutes.
We can use the time over here.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion. It is nice that Deputy Sargent has stayed in the House to listen attentively to the points being made. I compliment my colleagues, Deputies Kelly and Carty, for sharing time with me this evening. The Deputies know a great deal about this problem, particularly as it relates to rural Ireland. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who has excelled in his time as a Member of this House. He has held many portfolios and he is one of the most experienced Ministers of State in the Government.
It sounds like an obituary.
Should children's advertising be a political priority? The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, considers the reform of children's advertising to be a real priority. He directed the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to undertake a comprehensive review of the issues for that reason. One of his first acts when he assumed responsibility for this area was to direct the BCI to introduce new codes on children's advertising.
Sweden, which is the only EU member state to have banned advertisements aimed at those under the age of 12, has to deal with problems posed by satellite television stations established with the specific intent of beaming into that country. The stations use satellite platforms that are subject to regulations in the UK, where no restrictions on advertising aimed at children exist. The Sky television channels, for example, are available throughout Europe. We all know that the problem in this area is not drawing up new rules, but making them stick. The regulation of the EU Television Without Frontiers Directive is important because national regulations will be ineffective if children migrate to satellite stations.
Many studies have shown that children under the age of eight cannot tell the difference between a television programme and television advertising. While one could consider advertising aimed at children to be deceptive, it could also be classified as a work of genius if its content is proper and the potential purchaser at whom it is aimed is borne in mind. Television networks and producers have pointed out that children's advertising creates employment, demand and awareness. Advertising revenue across the EU has reached between €700 million and €1 billion. This income helps to maintain the level of domestic production in the EU broadcasting sector.
Section 1(a) of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill outlines a raft of measures to be introduced by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland following a direction of the Minister. The introduction of these measures is feasible within existing statutory provisions. I will outline why it is more appropriate for the BCI to have complete responsibility for the introduction of all aspects of the code. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, it is appropriate that all decisions are taken by the independent body.
I would like to speak about the power of television and advertising. Those familiar with the world of marketing are aware that the penetration of television advertising is much greater than that of radio, newspaper or other advertising. A figure of 70% has been cited in that regard. It is estimated that companies assign over 80% of their marketing budgets to television advertising. Many household products and goods would not be so popular with consumers if they had not had an immediate impact on television. The growth of the domestic advertising industry can be seen in this regard. This area has blossomed in recent years as a result of independent advertising productions which have been carried out by professionals who gained their expertise outside the State, mainly in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the US. Direct advertising campaigns which have been an enormous success have created many jobs.
The real concern of Deputies of all political persuasions relates to the advertising of products being beamed into the homes of boys and girls under the age of 12. I argue that we should be concerned about the impact of advertising on those under the age of 14 or 15. My worries in this regard are evident on two fronts. Parents are placed under a great deal of undue stress and unhappiness because they are unable to afford luxury items that are being beamed into their homes. As a parent, one's natural instinct is to do one's utmost for one's sons and daughters and to try to be as good as one's neighbours. I am also concerned about the advertising to children of products which are not good for their health. The House has invested a great deal of resources in the health system, through the Department of Health and Children and otherwise, in recent years.
Colleagues who spoke about junk food mentioned that we need to examine the type of advertising that is good for young people. If certain forms of advertising are not good for young people, the BCI has a duty to produce a charter that includes a list of items to be considered by the national broadcasting channels and television stations. The charter will have to examine the kinds of products that are beneficial for boys and girls. I will conclude by thanking my colleagues, including the Minister of State, for giving me an opportunity to speak.
I would like to thank Deputies for their contributions to this lively and interesting debate yesterday and again this evening. I am sure we will have further lively debate before 8.30 p.m. The large degree of agreement on all sides of the House has been interesting. Issues such as the protection of children and the promotion of healthy and responsible lifestyles have been discussed. All sides have shown an understanding of the real problems faced by Irish families as a consequence of advertising directed at children. An appreciation of the nature of the broadcasting industry has been demonstrated. Deputies are aware of the difficulties in putting in place effective regulations in this regard.
Some contributions focused on protecting children from the damaging effects of exploitative advertising. I acknowledge the speeches made last night by Deputies Eamon Ryan, Kehoe and Enright in this regard. Deputies Kelly, Carty and Cassidy have commented on the matter this evening. Deputies do not want to see children adopting unhealthy eating habits and lifestyles, which may be promoted by advertising campaigns driven by snack food and soft drink companies. Deputies Gormley and Twomey were very clear in this regard last night. Members recognise that doing something about these problems will present serious challenges. Deputy Crowe set out some of the main issues and problems in this regard in a detailed analysis of the legislation last night.
The Government has made its position clear. The Minister sees the reform of the children's advertising code as a real priority. He directed the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to undertake a comprehensive review of the associated issues to that end. One of his first acts when he became Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was to direct the BCI to introduce new codes on children's advertising. The commission is conducting a comprehensive process aimed at revising the advertising codes. The legislation under which that process is taking place requires the BCI to take account of the positions of bodies with vested interests in the welfare of children. There is a large degree of public involvement in the process of redrawing the codes. Deputies may contribute to that process and discuss the outcome that emerges.
The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is the right body to carry out this process. It is doing a good job in the process so far, and I expect the outcome to be credible and command a high level of support, given the work that has gone into the development of those codes. However, it is clear from last night's debate that the problem is not only about drawing up new rules for children's advertising. Several Deputies on the other side of the House mentioned that it must also consider the knock-on economic impact on Irish broadcasters of the disappearance of revenue from those advertisements. Television networks and producers have pointed out that children's advertising creates jobs, and in the European Union revenue from the business has reached between €700 million and €1 billion. That income helps maintain the level of domestic production in the EU's broadcasting sector.
Problems also arise from the fact that most of the television watched by our children is not regulated in Ireland. As children migrate to satellite stations, the national regulations banning advertisements aimed at them will be less effective. That is why the review of the EU Television Without Frontiers Directive is so important. We know that, throughout the EU, only Sweden has gone all the way in banning advertisements aimed at under-12s. The Swedes are having to deal with the problem of stations being set up on satellite platforms with the specific intent of beaming into the country. Those stations use satellite platforms subject to regulations in the UK, where no similar restriction on advertising to children exists.
The arguments advanced for strict regulation of children's advertising by Deputies were clear. Children are not nearly as sophisticated as adults and need external protection. Children's demands, driven by what they see on television, put great pressure on poorer families. The advertising business drives an acquisitive "me too" culture among young people. Junk food advertisements help create unhealthy eating habits and obese young people. Most children's advertisements are a form of direct exploitation of childhood weakness.
However, there is also a danger that we could fall into a cosy consensus on banning children's advertisements without looking at the offsetting factors, some of which I have mentioned. There is a clear educative as well as exploitative aspect of exposure to advertising. Dealing with advertisements is a necessary part of growing up. Some exposure to advertisements helps develop a critical approach to advertising later in life. Advertising is now so pervasive that any attempt to regulate will be offset to a degree by satellite broadcasting or more subversive means of advertising. New media, including the Internet, are beginning to play an increasingly important role in selling to children. It will be a great challenge to develop effective advertising rules which distinguish between much of what is aimed at the teen and pre-teen markets. The content of children's programmes is as damaging, in many cases, as the advertisement that precedes or follows them.
We know that a ban on children's advertising, as well as being difficult to implement, would have financial implications for the broadcasting sector. I am led to believe that, on a quick calculation, the rise in the licence fee required to offset a ban on advertising to under-15s would be between €10 and €15 per year. No such relief would be available, for example, to private broadcasters. The cost is not a reason to avoid a ban. It is part of the consequences that will have to be managed if we go forward with one.
We know that most adult advertisements are also a form of direct exploitation of adult weakness. We must ask whether banning children's advertising will have the long-term impact that the proponents claim. The human condition is grasping and acquisitive. Markets often work to satisfy transient, short-term needs at the expense of longer-term welfare. That applies to adults as well as children. Advertising is ultimately a tool of the market designed to address our fundamental needs and deepest insecurities. Counteracting the damaging impact of advertising on children requires education, good parenting, the ability to locate the "off" switch on the television set, and the capacity to live with one's children's disappointments, at least occasionally.
Yesterday Deputy Crawford detailed the remarkable cases of families which were not poor but on reasonable incomes who were turning to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for assistance in purchasing heavily advertised products for their children. No legislation on earth will help families who cannot manage this most basic challenge to the family budget. Children of families who are not poor also need to hear the word "No" from their parents. It helps them become better teenagers and, ultimately, better adults. Well-off children who hear the word "No" from their parents tend to have a broader and more realistic view of the world. It is a world in which there is disappointment and deferred consumption or pleasure is part of their everyday experience. Many well-off children who do not hear the word "No" often enough, as we all know, grow up into spoilt and utterly unreasonable young people. Our job is to legislate for the benefit of children and not for the convenience of parents. Pestering is a part of parenting, like it or not.
The Government feels it appropriate that the BCI has complete responsibility for the introduction of all aspects of the code for the following reasons. It has the power to do the work and has already been directed to do so by the Minister. It has particular knowledge and expertise in the broadcasting sector which it is applying to the task. The BCI has allocated specific resources to the task. They include the appointment of a dedicated broadcasting standards officer who is supported by the BCI's research function and a team of part-time monitors.
The BCI has introduced a fully developed consultation function for the purpose of informing the content of the code. It will examine ways of maximising the acquisition of media literacy, both before and following the implementation of the children's code. It has already sought suggestions from broadcasters, advertisers and the general public. It will also explore relevant opportunities with education providers and children's interest groups. The BCI has ensured through its consultation process that all groups with an interest in the welfare of children are included in every step of the process. It is envisaged that contact with the relevant groups will be maintained on an ongoing basis, and the BCI is committed by law to review the effectiveness of the code every three years.
The Government is clear that the problem with the Bill is its timing and the fact that its passage would do nothing to move forward the children's advertising code. Last night the Minister dealt with issues surrounding amending the public service broadcasting mandate on a piecemeal basis. As legislators we must take seriously the job of taking appropriate and adequate measures to safeguard the interests of Ireland's children. I respect the contributions made from all sides of the House to this lively debate. While not accepting the Bill, I must say that the Green Party, by tabling it, has created a welcome level of debate which will be of help to the BCI when it sits down to make its final decisions. The Government has already addressed the issues in section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2001. Let us give the BCI the time and space to get the job done. I cannot support this Bill.
I would like to share time with Deputies Upton, Coveney and Finian McGrath.
Acting Chairman:
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Perhaps the Acting Chairman might tell me when my five minutes are up. I warmly welcome the legislation which our colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has put before the House. I am among those who generally feel that advertising, even to adults, often has a very destructive impact on community and public culture. I am often struck by the sheer stupidity of many advertisements and the appalling repetition that we must endure, particularly of advertisements on late at night – the time when we Deputies get a chance to watch television. Advertising has a tremendous capacity to enforce stereotyping, whether of gender, age or other characteristics. The crass commercialism evident in all advertising throughout the economy applies in particular to that aimed at children. We sometimes see how hard it is to distinguish between pure advertising and the role of commercialism in sport, for example, and the recently, and rightly, criticised football and sports clubs who insist on changing shirts year after year, putting immense pressure on parents. That pester power that children have is rightly identified by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland as resulting from the significant impact on children of television advertising. It is a powerful medium. Furthermore, it is now recognised in politics that television advertising is the most powerful way in which to get a message across to adults. The literature on television advertising shows that children under six cannot distinguish between the end of a television programme and the beginning of advertisements. I welcome this Bill which seeks to amend section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2001. I particularly welcome the prohibition and restrictions on the advertising of food and beverages in which sugar, salt and fat are the principal components. This Bill is similar to one introduced by a Labour Party MP to the House of Commons a year and a half ago.
The proposers of the Bill should consider amendments to the Bill in respect of the age criteria placed on the provisions. A great deal of research has been carried out on this matter and it is an area in which we should be more specific. I welcome references to improving children's media literacy, even for those under 16 years of age. The attempt to revise section 28 of the Broadcasting Act in regard to cultural diversity is a valuable addition.
In typical fashion, the Minister has taken a different line tonight, but I regret that he was so mean-spirited about this Green Party-sponsored Bill. The Minister has some 26 personal advisers and has a large segment of a Department at his beck and call while Opposition Deputies are on their own trying to formulate policy with the help of the odd voluntary helper. There is no comparison between the two. The Minister should welcome the Bill and examine how it could be worked into the discussion with the BCI or simply adopt it. I have brought six or seven Bills before the House and, unfortunately, the Government tends to rebuff them. It is a pity the Minister took such a negative line on this typically valuable contribution by Deputy Eamon Ryan and the Green Party.
I welcome the consultative process in regard to the BCI. On behalf of the Labour Party, I made a submission to the second part of the process and hope to make another as it develops. The impact of advertising on children, particularly in regard to food and toys, is critical. I know Deputies will expand on that. I welcome the Bill and assure it the support of the Labour Party.
I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and highlight the cost of children's exposure to saturation levels of television advertising. The powerful tool we know as television advertising has been used effectively to put across many messages, including political ones. Therefore, it is not as if politicians are unaware of the influences.
The audience most susceptible to television advertising is children. The clever use of attractive images and the association of those images with foods and toys is insidious and reprehensible because the controls are difficult for parents to impose on children.
Yesterday, the report of the National Nutrition Surveillance Centre recorded the highlights of the consequences of bad eating habits. The epidemic of obesity which plagues the country is a consequence of poor eating and nutritional habits over many years. In many ways, Ireland is exceptionally lucky in that we refer regularly to our clean, green image and healthy nutritious food, and yet the themes of most advertisements used to promote foods revolve around four main food items, namely, cereals which are high in sugar, soft fizzy drinks, confectionery and savoury snacks. Where are the corresponding attractive advertisements for young viewers promoting fruit and vegetables? They are very thin on the ground. Such foods may not be so alluring to the young gourmet but at least their promotion should be done with the young audience in mind.
It is ironic that, at a time when consumption of fruit and vegetables is inadequate for 30% of the population, there is a proposal to combine Bord Bia and Bord Glas. Surely the need is to strengthen the production and promotion of fruit and vegetables by enhancing the role of Bord Glas, rather than diminishing it.
High salt, fat and sugar content are the cornerstones of the junk food which is promoted to children during daytime programmes. The people promoting such foods are well aware of the consequences of all of these food ingredients. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, high cholesterol and psychological disorders have all been documented. The evidence is well-established and there is no argument about it. However, it seems the people promoting it have little or no concern for the consequences of those promotional practices. The large food companies which promote these foods to children should wake up and be responsible. Sooner or later, the fat epidemic will be challenged. In the US, a number of class actions are in hand, the outcomes of which will be interesting. It will be particularly interesting for the fast food industry here.
A recent report by the Food Standards Agency in the UK stated that there was a clear link between television viewing, diet, obesity and cholesterol levels. One study showed that the more advertisements were viewed, the more snacks and calories were consumed. It is also the case that the advertised diets were less healthy than those recommended by nutritionists. The plague of overweight and obesity must be tackled in a structured and integrated manner. Overweight and obese children are not only a consequence of advertising, although it is difficult to separate the various factors which play a role and identify the importance of each one.
This debate relates to communicating a message to a very receptive audience. Is it not equally important that the message be communicated in a positive way by other Departments such as the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science, Arts, Sport and Tourism and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? All have an important part to play in disseminating the positive messages of healthy eating. The absence of that good and useful information is as important as the negative message which is positively promoted now.
I call on the Minister to initiate an interdepartmental group to examine the value of the messages or absence of them which are available to children. The group should link in with the major stakeholders – the food producers, manufacturers, retailers, the hospitality industry, teachers and parents. A great deal of lip-service has been paid to the promotion of healthy eating and good dietary habits for which the health promotion board of the Department of Health and Children is responsible. However, yesterday's report on the overweight and obesity problem highlights the need for much greater penetration of the market with positive messages. The general public is often unaware of the significance of the small print which tells them of the fat content or the meaning of the number of calories in the product. It may be time for advertising of another sort, namely, warnings on some foods that they contain more than a specified amount of fat, the information about which is in large print and, for example, advises the consumer that it exceeds the recommended daily intake and provides information on that recommended daily intake.
We must cut down on the advertising of junk foods, increase the quantity and quality of information on healthy foods and provide more facilities for sports and so on. The further irony of the advertising business is that there is also an obsession with promoting diets. On the one hand there is a junk food problem and on the other is the problem in regard to the promotion of diets. Every zany diet has been promoted and advertised. I support Deputy Broughan's point that the time has come to include media studies in all school programmes, incorporating the importance of advertising.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I congratulate Deputy Eamon Ryan and the Green Party for bringing it forward since it has been a useful discussion. I welcome the fact that the Minister and Minister of State have made the effort to come to the House and listen to what the Opposition is saying. Unfortunately, they have decided to reject the strategy towards helping to address the problem, as outlined by Deputy Eamon Ryan, which Fine Gael is happy to support on this occasion.
If amendments need to be introduced to change the wording of the draft amending Bill, that is fine, but to reject it outright is a mistake. The purpose of this draft amendment legislation is aimed at strengthening the ability of the Minister to give policy direction to the BCI and perhaps in future to the BAI on the important issue of regulating advertising outputs and their impact on children. It also requires the BCI to take into account the welfare and physical health of children when preparing a code of advertising standards. The Bill aims to amend the Broadcasting Act 2001.
I welcome the work the BCI is doing at present in terms of developing a children's code of advertising, which is long overdue. There has been considerable consultation with the general public as well as stakeholders in this regard. Everyone has had the opportunity to make a contribution and comment on the code that will be introduced in the future.
Unfortunately, the Minister last evening totally rejected the Bill. This was surprising. He stated that it is unnecessary and should not be introduced before the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is created, which will probably not be for another nine months or so. I cannot understand the Minister's rationale. If one considers the logic behind it, then the work being done by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland at present should also be stalled until the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is put in place. It is nonsense to say we should not introduce legislation to give direction to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland because the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland will soon come on stream.
The Minister is aware that legislation will be dealt with tomorrow which, despite the arrival of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in the near future, provides for new work to be carried out by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. I was surprised that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, used this nonsensical argument as his main reason for dismissing the legislation before us.
Children are vulnerable and spend, on average, four hours per day watching television. There is no doubt that if advertising was not as effective as it is, it would not be so commonplace on television screens at times when children are likely to be watching. Whether it is in terms of the promotion of the latest toy, creating a new craze for Christmas and placing immense pressure on many parents to deliver, fast food or new branded products of clothing, etc., the Minister and the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland have a responsibility. I do not believe we should say this is an issue for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland or the BAI, when it comes on stream, and that the Minister should not be involved.
I agree with everything Deputy Upton stated in respect of obesity, which is a major concern. This is one small measure we can adopt, not to ban children's advertising but to restrict certain types of advertising at particular times of the day. This will have a positive strategic impact in respect of the over-saturation of advertising for children.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this progressive and sensible legislation, which is designed to amend the law relating to broadcasting and advertising. I commend the Green Party on introducing the Bill.
The Bill is concerned with children, public health and preventing a generation from clogging up the health service in the future. It is also concerned with a vision for the future which will save lives and taxpayers' money in approximately ten years' time. When one considers the detail of the legislation, one can see that the objective is to strengthen and specify the health-related responsibilities of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland in respect of its role in regulating advertising output and the impact of advertising on children. The Bill provides for the restriction of the advertising to children of particular food categories, including foodstuffs or beverages with high sugar, fat or salt contents. It also provides for restrictions on advertising targeted at children in certain age categories.
Section 1 of the Bill has teeth and I strongly support it. If we do not act now, we will encounter major problems with obesity in the future. We could also face a major public health disaster. As someone who was elected on a health and disability ticket, it is my public duty to support the Bill. I challenge all Members to cross to this side of the House and support this sensible legislation.
Obesity is growing at 1% per year across all groups in the population. We need to tackle the diet and lack of exercise issues which affect many people. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many voluntary and sporting groups which work with young people by coaching and training teams, ensuring they engage in physical exercise. In the Visitors Gallery this evening is a group of residents from Charlemont on Griffith Avenue in Dublin North-Central, comprising people involved in sport and friends of mine. These individuals have given many hours to training young teams. I thank and commend them for their work. The volunteers who train and coach our children are providing a valuable service for their country and for the health service of the future. It is important to recognise and acknowledge their valuable contribution. Everything I have said is relevant in terms of amending section 28(2)(c) of the Broadcasting Act which aims to promote and protect public health, including the welfare and physical health of children. That is the core issue of the Bill.
The obesity rate on the north side of Dublin of 15.7% is the highest in the country. We must ask why it is illegal to sell contaminated food when society does nothing about the sale of unhealthy food. Obesity in men increased by two and a half times in the ten years between 1990 and 2000. Children between six months and five years of age who are obese have a 25% chance of becoming obese teenagers. Such teenagers are 80% more likely to become obese adults. These facts speak for themselves.
I call on Deputies from all parties to support the legislation. I urge them not to blow the Bill out of the water. Those opposite should join Members on this side and do something to help our children. This is a serious national issue and this legislation has the potential to create a more healthy society. I urge all Deputies to support the Bill.
I do not know why the BCI has been asked to take action in respect of this matter because it made such a mess of the situation regarding North-West Radio, the most popular radio station in the country, by removing its licence. I do not see how the BCI will do any better in terms of dealing with childhood obesity or advertising aimed at children.
I support the Bill which is a good and necessary measure. As a general practitioner, I am only too aware of the ill effects of obesity. It is a fact that obese children make obese adults. As a student, I spent some time in the United States of America. I always think that we are only a few years behind that country, in which there are so many obese children and adults. We are going down the road taken by the Americans and we are catching up to them.
Who is controlling whom? We seem to be completely controlled by the media and commercial forces. Whether it is Christmas, Father's Day and Mother's Day, we no longer have control of what we spend. We are mere puppets in the hands of multinationals which tell us and our children what to do and on what we should spend our money. These companies tell our children what to eat and wear and, like fools, we go along with it. We should have control because we are responsible for making laws.
These companies are making the difference through the media. Advertising is a powerful force and it is working. Those who promote unhealthy foods should be made aware that they are creating major health problems. The number of people suffering diabetes type II as a result of obesity is increasing. People are becoming unhealthy at an earlier age. That should not happen.
I strongly support this Bill. We need to take control in regard to food which causes bad health. Children do not know what is good for them. They are faced with advertisements for a free toy with every burger they purchase. There is no rationale behind advertising Christmas in September. People are spending money unhealthily.
Parents think it is all right to fill their children with coke and crisps. However, general practitioners know that those who take in a high sugar diet suffer highs and lows in their glucose levels. That makes for an unhappy child. Children who eat nutritional foods like fruit and so on are more content. Parents wonder why their children are high – it is as a result of their glucose levels.
There is an onus on society and on us, as legislators, to ensure we take steps to deal with this issue. What do children know about nutrition? What do adults without proper guidance know about it? People say we have too many laws. This is sensible and positive legislation and it is the way forward. I support the Bill.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cuffe and Sargent.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
During last night's debate Deputy Eamon Ryan elucidated the reason we are putting foward this legislation. We would be grateful for support in this regard.
I ask that the Government should support this Bill, debate it and, if necessary, amend it. It is a topical issue that will not go away. As the Minister said last night, submissions are being invited on this issue. The Green Party did not bring forth this Bill because submissions on it were invited by Government. We have been speaking about such a Bill for years. We have only now had an opportunity to bring it forward because of the limitations which apply to a Technical Group wishing to introduce legislation.
I would like to speak about advertising in terms of education, which is my portfolio. I also have a portfolio in the area of arts, sports and tourism. Deputy Eamon Ryan has outlined the reason we are introducing this Bill and has dealt with the issue of advertising and the BCI. Deputy Sargent will conclude in that regard. Deputy Cuffe has his own angle on the Bill.
I would like to highlight some of the issues for schools. I do not wish to see covert advertising, such as exists in the US, becoming the norm in schools. Commercial companies in the US have exclusive contracts to sell soft drinks or food in school grounds. I would be wary about such a practice. It is not advertising in the broad sense of television, radio or billboards; it is advertising by another name. I hope that any legislation limiting advertising will cover subliminal advertising in schools.
I noticed while visiting schools that pupils are not as active as before. In many cases, teachers are doing their best to encourage children to become active. Maintenance grants for sports equipment in schools in non-disadvantaged areas have been cut to €600 per annum, not a huge cost to the Exchequer. A school in a disadvantaged area receives €1,200, again a small amount which can hugely impact on whether a child gets involved in sport. Such regressive fiscal policies will lead to even more difficulties in the longer term.
To prove my point, I will highlight some issues regarding spending on sport versus tackling the health crisis and social deprivation. I am tying sports and schools together because it is in schools that one can best organise physical activity for young children. We know the local GAA clubs and so on are involved in extracurricular activities but it is important that we reach children in school. Sport and physical activity are linked to health. I will not go into that, given the limited amount of time available to me.
Regular physical activity reduces the risk of coronary heart disease by 50%. Sport programmes – I have said this before at conventions – have an impact on youth at risk because they are recognised as a support for personal development. Taking Canada as an example, a six year study in Quebec showed that children who participated in five hours of sport per week achieved higher marks than those who did not participate. Youth smoking and physical activity are also linked. In 80% of cases Canadians aged 24 who were active had never smoked. There was a 17.3% reduction in crime in communities with a sports programme and a 10% increase in communities without such an initiative. The study also showed that 92% of girls active in sports were less likely to use drugs and 80% were less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. In Canada, it is estimated – these are the only figures publicly available – that it costs one hundred times more to incarcerate a young person than it does to provide recreational programmes. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism in the context of the need for an audit of sports facilities. That still has not been done.
A pilot study initiated a couple of years ago by the National Coaching and Training Centre in co-operation with the FAI, the GAA and the IRFU discovered that there are proportionately fewer children participating in external sports at primary level than at post-primary level. It shows that substance abuse and obesity have increased at all age levels and that only 20% of primary and 35% of post-primary schools have a written policy on sport. While most post-primary schools had qualified physical education teachers, only 20% of primary schools had such teachers.
Something readily noticeable in schools is tuck shops. Cans of coke carry advertising, as do posters. I ask that the Government limit all forms of advertising, be they overt as in television and radio advertising or subliminal by way of contracts in schools.
I commend the Bill and compliment Deputy Eamon Ryan on the work he has done on it.
Advertising works; children are vulnerable. The Minister has a duty to protect children, their innocence, their hearts and their minds. That does not mean we should cosset, pamper or blinker them. It means we should cherish, nurture and safeguard them.
In 1932, an American psychologist named Edward Tolman said: "Give me a child from any background and I will turn him into anything you want, a scientist, a politician or even a criminal." Those words ring true today. Advertising is aimed at young people and gives advertisers the ability to change a child. The Minister is obliged to protect children.
Children are an ideal target because they are avid television viewers. The methods of Edward Tolman are being used today, most noticeably by the big name brands and by advertising agencies that use television to turn children into consumers. Many countries have put limits on advertising aimed at younger people. Quebec has banned print and broadcast advertising aimed at children under 13 years of age. Luxembourg and Belgium prohibit it before and after children's programmes, while in Italy some children's programmes cannot be interrupted by commercials. An agreement between the Danish Government and the television networks restricts advertising aimed at children. As recently as last week, the British culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, called on the television regulator, Ofcom, to revise the inadequate code in advertising.
We need a curb on junk food advertisements in order to combat child obesity. Ireland does not even have an ombudsman for children, let alone legislation to protect them from the worst of targeted marketing. Governments should give leadership and it is not enough for the Government to wipe its hands of this and leave it to the broadcasting commission. Nor is it enough for the Government to wipe its hands of its responsibility to the vulnerable in society. The Minister should lead and regulate in the public interest.
The clearest example of this is the Swedish model. Sweden is an open society by any international standard where the freedom to receive and disseminate information ranks high. While Sweden has sometimes been criticised for being too open, restrictions have been put in place in recent years. Since 1991, there has been a ban on television advertising aimed at children under the age of 12. Almost all types of advertising directly before, in the middle of or after children's programmes are not allowed under this legislation. It does not deal simply with children's products such as toys, it also looks at the entire food issue. Decisive criteria are used to ensure there is no overt or covert messages aimed at children. We all remember the words of the Pokémon cartoon, "gotta catch them all" which delivered a strong message to children, even in the middle of programming. This is controlled in Sweden and we need similar controls in Ireland. In introducing this Bill, the Green Party has been accused of creating a nanny state. If this nanny is the Swedish model, we would be more than happy for her to play a role in safeguarding our children.
As we take over the Presidency of the EU, the directive on television without frontiers is important. It is not good enough on the eve of taking over the Presidency that we would leave it to a semi-State agency to take responsibility for advertising and children. The Minister should put forward a vision of what we want to achieve and protect our children from the undue influence of advertising. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, should know something about the food industry, as he was recently the Minister of State with responsibility for food. He should take a lead in this regard. Almost half of advertising aimed at children relates to food and four out of five of those advertisements are for sugary cereals, soft drinks, fast food or salty snacks. We could play a part in combating obesity by introducing legislation in this instance.
Patterns of consumption, attitudes and values are established early in life. Children and young people have become an attractive target group for commercial interests. Advertising works and it is all the more important for the Government to lead by regulating this industry when it affects those in vulnerable age groups.
Ba mhaith liom, i dtosacht báire, mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach páirtí agus gach Ball Neamhspleách a thug tacaíocht don Bhille seo, an Bille Craolacháin (Leasú) 2003. I especially want to thank Deputy Eamon Ryan who has put so much work into this as our party spokesperson. Being a father of four young children, the Deputy understands this issue well.
The matter of obesity and the related issues of chronic heart disease, cancer and diabetes are set to trigger soaring costs for this State. We cannot avoid debating this issue and it must be addressed. The health cost of this is estimated to be more than €5 billion per annum by 2010. That is not to mention the pain and grief that will befall people along the way. My uncle passed on to me a great love of nature and hill walking. While he is not an old man, a lifetime of dietary problems has caught up with him and his is now wheelchair bound. He contracted diabetes and has had both legs and a number of fingers amputated. Huge problems exist for people who have been victim of the inaction of previous Governments in tackling the problem of obesity and the associated problems of advertising unsuitable food to children.
The Minister must accept that a problem exists and should not wait for the BCI to be formed. This legislation attempts to address the lack of rules on advertising where footballers, pop stars and cartoons are used to sell junk food to young children. This issue is such a matter of life and death, pain and huge expense, that it would be irresponsible for us not to introduce this legislation and seek to give the BCI political guidance and leadership.
Deputy Eamon Ryan has acknowledged the work of the commission and we are not trying to outdo it or eclipse its efforts. In the last Dáil, Deputy Gormley and me concentrated on a number of areas, one of which was energy. We tabled an amendment to the electricity regulation Bill that said the regulator should have regard for environmental criteria in electricity generation. The wind energy industry is benefiting as a result. This issue is similar and I urge the Minister of State to accept the legislation on that basis.
I acknowledge that the contribution of the Minister of State was much more constructive than that of the Minister. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was so mean-minded that he decried my party for introducing this legislation. We have been dealing with this matter for years. We raised the matter in The Irish Times on 22 July. Deputy Eamon Ryan carried out a survey of 200 television advertisements and found that 56% of those were for food and sugar products. We have introduced this legislation in the knowledge that Ireland will hold the Presidency of the EU for the next six months. We recognise that the television without frontiers directive will be debated and we will have a chance to influence EU advertising regulation. The Green Party recognises that advertisements come from other jurisdictions and this must be addressed.
We must act in the next six months and the BCI will not come into operation until after this. We do not have time to wait for the BCI. Other countries recognise this problem and have taken action. The Minister of State may know it is predicted that one in three people born in the US in 2000 will contract type 2 diabetes. This Government has a choice. It can sit on its hands waiting for the BCI and pretend it is not the Government, or it can act and this straightforward and short Bill would serve to amend the legislation and give the BCI clear political leadership. The choice lies with the Government. All Members on this side of the House support this legislation. If the Government blocks it, on its own head be it. Those children will not be able to walk up any stairs when they are adults. Action needs to be taken now and the Minister should support the Bill.
Question put.
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
As a teller in the last vote, I ask that a vote be taken by means other than electronic means.
Under Standing Order 69, Deputy Boyle is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.
Question again put.
Tá
|
Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairi.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim. |
Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel. O'Keeffe, Batt. |
Níl–continued
|
O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin. |
Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Wilkinson, Ollie.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boyle and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Question declared lost.