Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Having listened to the various contributions, I am disappointed the Minister of State will not be accepting my amendment. I am particularly disappointed that he will not be accepting amendment No. 35 in the name of Senator O'Reilly.

I listened with interest to the comments of Senator Alex White, who appears to be concerned with regard to provisions in legislation being either too prescriptive or overly draconian. I presume he is particularly concerned about Senator Norris's amendment which would lead to the imposition of a complete ban on the advertisement of alcohol, and that in my name which proposes a watershed of 9 p.m. We must consider what is the role of legislators. It is true that we should never make legislative provision or amend legislation lightly. However, we are debating an issue, namely, alcohol, which is continually discussed as being of concern in society. There comes a time when we must stop talking and start legislating in the public interest.

I am concerned in respect of the emergence of a certain quango-itis, so to speak, whereby we become nervous about proposing specific legislative provisions and state that a particular issue is a matter for some quango or an authority we intend to establish, or that it should be dealt with under a code. There is a place for quangos, authorities and codes. When people say that a matter would best be dealt with under a particular code, what they really mean is that it would best be dealt with in a way that gives something to everyone. Sometimes there is a need for clearer intent at the heart of legislation.

Senator O'Reilly proposes a code in respect of the advertisement of alcohol which I am happy to support. The code in question represents a more limited strike than Senator Norris or I would have made in respect of this matter. None the less, the relevant amendment is very thoughtful and challenges to the Government to take the issue of the advertisement of alcohol as seriously as it does that of the advertisement of junk food. It is stated in section 42(2)(g) that broadcasting codes shall provide:

[T]hat advertising, teleshopping material, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion employed in any broadcasting service, in particular advertising and other such activities which relate to matters likely to be of direct or indirect interest to children, protects the interests of children having particular regard to the general public health interests of children[.]

Who could disagree with that? Section 42(4) provides that:

A broadcasting code prepared by the Authority under subsection (2)(g) may prohibit the advertising in a broadcasting service of a particular class or classes of foods and beverages considered by the Authority to be the subject of public concern in respect of the general public health interests of children, in particular those which contain fat, trans-fatty acids, salts or sugars.

A standard is being set down by the Government. It is not proposing a specific ban. However, it is proposing to enable the creation of such a ban in legislation. It is interesting that the phrase "a broadcasting code shall prohibit such advertising" is not used in the Bill. However, it is stated that such a code may prohibit advertising of this nature. I am concerned that people are scared to legislate and would be happier to refer certain matters to quangos. Those to whom I refer are terrified of taking a principled decision and running with it.

It is not as if legislation, should it prove counterproductive, could not be amended or repealed subsequently. There are enough resources available to the Government, in the context of intelligent personnel who will research the issues, for it to have a clearer view at this stage with regard to the issue of the advertisement of junk food. However, that is not my main point.