HC Deb 02 July 1996 vol 280 cc745-50

'.—(1) Section 9 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted— (2A) The Commission shall take steps to secure that there is included in any code for the time being in force under subsection (1) above a provision prohibiting in any advertisement involving a child the use of voice—over technique or any similar method which has the effect of attributing to that child words or thoughts which, having regard to their sexual or other content, are inappropriate in a child of the age depicted in the advertisement in question. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above a child is a person who has not yet attained ten years of age. (2C) "Inappropriate" in subsection (2A) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance to be issued by the Commission as part of the code issued under subsection (1).".'.—[Mr. Tony Banks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in clause 116, page 100, line 36, at end insert— '(d) the effects on viewers and listeners of advertising.'.

Mr. Banks

New clause 20 has arisen because of a series of television advertisements by Safeway supermarkets. I shall explain the advertisements for the benefit of hon. Members who have not seen them—I am not recommending that they should. Two children—Harry and Molly—are used in the advertisement. In real life, the actor Harry is four and the actress Molly is three—if we can call children of that age actors. In the advertisement, they meet in a Safeway creche and, after some dialogue, an actor's voice-over has Harry say, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and Molly's voice-over replies, "On a first date? What sort of a girl does he think I am?"

Some people believe that I am making a fuss and that there are better things for me to get on with—I deny that. Other people have said that the advertisement is cute—which is what I have heard from the advertising agency but, of course, it would say that. I believe that the advertisement is very tacky. After seeing the advertisement a couple of times, I spoke to some hon. Members from both sides of the House. I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter.

Safeway does not give a toss about this because it is simply trying to sell more groceries. If hon. Members look at the terms of early-day motion 911—it is signed by 26 Members of Parliament, from all parties—they will see that there are more serious implications involved in this genre of advertising. For example, if this advertisement had used two adults—and not voice-overs—who met in a Safeway supermarket and the man had said to the woman, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and she responded in the way that Molly does, there would have been far more protest. Safeway would have considered that to be vulgar, unacceptable and sexist. It would never have contemplated using such an advertisement and no copy would have been submitted by any advertising agency.

Why is it that language that would be unacceptable if it came directly out of the mouths of adults is somehow acceptable when it is voiced-over on two children, one aged four and the other aged three? I am not known for being a spoilsport, for being a party pooper or for being particularly prurient. I find this sort of thing offensive and exploitative. What is cute about that sort of language coming out of the mouths of children—or purporting to come out of the mouths of children? Their innocence will be lost soon enough—we do not have to hasten that day in advertisements.

What we see in this technique is nothing less than cynical and exploitative. The advertisement is not about showing children being cute and sweet; it is about selling groceries—that is the bottom line. The advertisement is not about promoting the welfare of children; it is about selling groceries. I am sure that Safeway can find other ways to do that.

At one level, such techniques by the advertising agencies play to a silly sentimentality among us all. However, at another level, they run the risk of encouraging those who molest children, who like to convince themselves that children under five have advanced sexual thoughts. That was the fear that I had when I saw the advertisement, but sometimes even I wonder whether I am going over the top. Therefore, I was interested to read an article that backed me up. I refer to an article that appeared in The Independent on Sunday of 26 May that quotes Susan Hope-Borland, a psychologist who has worked with paedophiles for more than 10 years. It states She fears these apparently harmless and amusing scenes will in fact serve to reinforce paedophiles' grossly distorted beliefs about normal childhood behaviour. 'The implied message in this advert will, unfortunately, fit with the thought processes of many paedophiles,' said Ms Hope-Borland, who works with the North Wales Forensic Psychiatric Service. 'Paedophiles interpret normal gestures by children as deliberate acts of provocation; they believe that children are sexually aware, and this cognitive distortion is used to justify their behaviour. This kind of advert is certainly not helpful and could be dangerous."' They are not my words, but the words of someone who has worked with paedophiles. When we realise just how abhorrent paedophilia is and how disgusted we feel by the actions of such people—indeed, I refer to the Government's recent decision in relation to a register of such people—we have to take this sort of matter seriously. I do not think I am over-reacting on this occasion.

Safeway's advertisement agency, Bates Dorland, naturally denied such a claim—of course, it would. Mr. Adam Leigh, the account director, has said how few complaints the agency has received about the advertisement—in fact, it received more complaints when, in an earlier ad, Harry said that he did not believe in Father Christmas. Mr. Leigh even had the temerity—it was insulting—to suggest that such criticisms reflect more on the accusers than on the advertising agency. It might be that Mr. Leigh does not have much of a conscience, but if he cannot accept that there could be dangers as a result of the advertisement, he is as witless as he is exploitative of children.

I have looked at the ITC code to see whether the advertisements could fall foul of the code in relation to the use of children. Paragraph 13 of the code states: Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner. Of course, the loophole is that adults are used to put sexual innuendo into the dialogue—it does not come directly out of the mouths of the children. The agency is able to get around the ITC's code by using this technique. The loophole must be closed.

I know that there is sympathy for my new clause. I hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply. On this occasion, I feel that I am reflecting the views of many hon. Members—this is not just an over-reaction on my part. I have identified a serious matter. I am sure that the Minister will take it seriously.

Mr. Cynog Dans (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

I wish to address amendment No. 50—which is grouped with new clause 20—which touches on a similar area of concern. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has referred to the protection of children, which is a large part of my motivation in tabling amendment No. 50. I also tabled a number of other amendments which were not selected. I believe that the competence of the Broadcasting Standards Commission should be extended to include advertising. I would like to see the BSC empowered to adjudicate on complaints about advertising and other related matters. However, the amendment simply gives the BSC the power and the responsibility to conduct research into the effects of advertising on listeners and viewers.

I do not want to get into a debate about whether the BSC should exist or to start a competition between the BSC and the Independent Television Commission. The reality is that the BSC exists and, as its job is to deal with broadcasting standards, I believe that it should also address the question of television advertising standards. After all, advertising is as much a part of television as the programmes and advertising standards are of equal concern. People should be able to complain about advertisements to the body that is responsible for monitoring broadcasting standards.

As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West emphasised, advertising is enormously influential—and not just in relation to which brand of product a purchaser selects. Advertising affects whether a product is purchased and in what quantities it is consumed by individuals and by society. It is important to emphasise that most advertising is not concerned with providing information, giving details about the product, or with explaining—by rational and evidential means—the virtues of a particular brand over other brands.

5 pm

Advertising is essentially manipulative: it employs great creativity for decadent purposes. It works by establishing associations with ideas. It encourages fantasy and it appeals to a sense of status, emphasising ownership as a status symbol. It appeals to hedonism and many advertisements have eroticism at their heart. On the whole, advertising is a means of encouraging increased consumption: it is the linchpin of consumerism and the consumerist economy.

I am particularly concerned about the effect of advertising on children. It is not difficult to argue that the manipulation of children for commercial exploitation is offensive. I believe that, by encouraging consumerism among children, we may be creating significant problems for the future. Sustainability will require husbanding the world's resources rather than squandering them. One hopes that thrift, rather than profligacy, will become a virtue in the future.

Appendix 1 of the 1995 ITC code recognises the impact of advertising on children by prohibiting the advertising of certain products. For example, it prohibits the advertising of alcoholic drinks, liqueur chocolates, matches, medicines, vitamins and certain films before the 9 o'clock threshold. The code states: Advertisements must not exhort children to purchase or to ask their parents or others to make enquiries or purchases. Rule No. 7 states: No advertisement may lead children to believe that if they do not have or use the product or service advertised they will be inferior in some way to other children or liable to be held in contempt or ridicule. If one applied those rules literally, one would find that most advertising complied with them. In reality, parents know the pressure that their children place upon them as a result of the influence of advertising. It is clear that much advertising has the very effect on children that the advertising code aims to prevent.

Advertising should be rigorously examined and researched—that is what the amendment calls for. I would particularly like to see that principle applied to advertising that encourages children to consume unhealthy food. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who announced the Government's policy on healthy eating, would welcome that move. It has been suggested that the code should prohibit advertising that encourages excessive consumption of fatty and sugary foods by children.

The National Food Alliance has expressed considerable concern about that matter and its research has confirmed many of our fears. It found that children's diets are too high in fat, sugar and salt and too low in fibre. It found also that advertising on children's television is dominated by commercials for sweet and/or fatty foods and that advertising can have a powerful effect on children's behaviour, specifically in relation to food and drink. That is a clear recognition of the power of advertising and its influence on children's behaviour. That is a serious matter.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from advertising, a major influence on children's diets is the composition of school meals? Does he agree also that reintroducing regulations on the contents of school meals would do a great deal to improve children's diets?

Mr. Dafis

I agree strongly, but I suggest that we are straying wide of the subject for debate. As a schoolteacher, I remember being horrified when children in the dinner queue were presented with trayfuls of sweets. I thought that that was a thoroughly bad practice.

However, today I am concerned about advertising. Encouraging unhealthy eating is a serious problem. The National Food Alliance points out that 25 per cent. of British women—it does not comment about men—will be obese by 2005. It suggests a number of amendments to the ITC code. I would like those amendments to be examined as part of the research that the BSC should carry out in relation to the influence of advertising on the public, and specifically on children.

The National Food Alliance recommendations are supported by an impressive array of more than 50 organisations, including the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the British Dietetic Association, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the Low Pay Unit, the National Farmers Union and the British Heart Foundation. The recommendations were published in July 1994, but they were not taken on board in the ITC code that was published in autumn 1995. The issue of food advertising is only one reason for tabling the amendment. I believe that there are plenty more reasons and that the amendment deserves serious consideration.

Mr. Sproat

I turn first to the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I understand his concerns about the potential exploitation of children in advertising and I know that the Safeway case that he cited disgusted many people. Both the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council received several complaints that the advertisement portrayed children in an inappropriate manner. The BSC has yet to deliver its findings on the complaints, but apparently the ITC did not find that the tone of the advertisement was sexually provocative or likely to encourage paedophilia. However, as I understand it, that was not the hon. Gentleman's charge: he objected to the advertisement's portrayal of children in a sexual situation. I hope that the ITC will view the hon. Gentleman's speech in that light and I shall certainly bring that point to its attention.

I agree that advertising must not sexualise children. The ITC code of advertising standards and practice contains the clear direction that Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner. That is not the hon. Gentleman's claim—he would complain if the advertisement did that. He is complaining that the advertisement associates children with a sexual encounter between adults and that that is offensive. It is open to the ITC to strengthen its code in light of its own experiences and concerns and that of others, and it may now wish to do so. However, I do not believe that the example cited by the hon. Gentleman represents a trend in advertising that merits a specific legislative measure of this kind. I certainly hope that no such trend develops.

As I have said, I share the deep unease of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about what took place and I shall draw his remarks, which echo the opinions of many hon. Members and others, firmly and specifically to the ITC's attention. Following that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw new clause 20.

I shall turn now to amendment No. 50. Section 12(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 places a specific responsibility on the ITC to carry out or commission research into the effects of programmes, including advertisements. The Broadcasting Standards Commission may also, under the Bill, commission research into the effects of advertising to the extent that the research relates to matters falling within its remit, including issues of standards, fairness or privacy. The Government do not however feel that it would be appropriate to extend that power to cover issues relating to the effects of advertising generally. I hope, therefore, that in the light of that explanation the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will not press amendment No. 50.

Mr. Tony Banks

I thank the Minister for what he has said. I know that he takes this matter seriously, as I do. I consider new clause 20 to be a shot across the bows of the advertising agency and the advertiser. A trend has not yet developed and I hope that, after our short debate and after the Minister has acted as he has undertaken to do, we will not see any such trend. I shall personally continue to monitor the situation, as will others. Under the circumstances and with the assurances that I have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to