Sexual Imagery in Goods Aimed at Children
The next item on the agenda is a round-table evidence session on sexual imagery in goods aimed at children. The subject lends itself to the round-table format, which will allow us to discuss openly issues that grab a lot of media attention and are matters of public concern. When, at a previous meeting, the committee was forming its views on the subject, it considered a paper that provided details of goods that contain sexualised images and appear to be aimed at children. The paper referred to studies that show the negative impact that sexualisation may have on teenage girls in particular.
Today's round-table discussion will be an informal, relaxed session to enable us to understand the issues in a little more detail and to identify any relevant follow-up work that the committee could do. We are pleased to have with us the guests who will take part in the session. We will start with introductions. I am Margaret Mitchell, the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee.
Good morning. I am a member of the committee, representing Central Scotland.
Ed Mayo (Consumer Focus):
Good morning. I am the chief executive of Consumer Focus.
I am a professor of marketing at EMLYON Business School and Rotterdam business school.
I am an MSP and a member of the committee.
Tom Narducci (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children):
I am a senior consultant with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
I am an MSP for Glasgow and a member of the committee.
Ann Henderson (Scottish Trades Union Congress):
I am the assistant secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
I am an MSP and a member of the committee.
I work for the Nottinghamshire Domestic Violence Forum and am a trainer and consultant on domestic violence issues.
Thank you. I should have mentioned at the outset that we have received apologies from Elaine Smith. Johann Lamont, Malcolm Chisholm and Bill Kidd have indicated that they will join us later.
We will start with the issue of increased prevalence of sexual imagery in goods aimed at children. We have received written evidence from Dr Agnes Nairn, Playboy Enterprises International and the Scottish Retail Consortium that suggests that there is some dubiety about whether the prevalence of such imagery has increased.
This is a really important issue. Because it is so important, we need to ensure that the definitions that we use are clear. We may want to broaden the definition of sexual imagery in goods, as there is imagery in goods, the advertising of those goods and the media, which is the backdrop to everything that children see. It is useful to look at each of those areas.
There is sexual imagery in goods such as pole-dancing kits for kids. On Saturday, I saw the slogan "bitch magnet" on a baby's romper suit in British Homes Stores. Recently Coca-Cola had to withdraw an advert because it included sexual imagery, although the product is not sexual. We must also consider the role of MTV and music videos.
You asked whether sexual imagery has become more prevalent. To find out whether it has, we would need to consider the three areas I mentioned—goods, advertising and the media backdrop. I am not aware of any empirical research to examine what happened in the past and what is happening now, but that does not mean that the prevalence has not increased; it means that the evidence is not present. One of the first things that the committee might like to consider is starting some research.
So we are saying that we are all aware of an increase in the prevalence but that it has not been proven because there is no formal way in which to gather and collate the information—we are relying more or less on hearsay?
Yes.
I support Agnes Nairn's point about the need for research. In the past seven years, I have done a lot of work with young people in primary and comprehensive schools, young offenders, youth inclusion programmes and home-educated children. I have worked with a broad spectrum of young people. I can speak about what I have observed in the attitudes of boys and young men, but it is not research proven. Over the seven years, I have noticed the increasing ease with which young men use hostile and derogatory language about women and girls, and an increase in jokes about sexual violence against women and girls. The situation is more open now and more hostile—at least, it could become hostile.
How do you relate that specifically to the use of sexual imagery in goods that are targeted at children?
When we consider targeting at children, we need first to consider the age at which we think childhood ends. I am talking about 12 to 16-year-old boys using imagery on their mobile phones as a way of sexually bullying girls and teachers. Only two years ago, Playboy products started being discussed in my work in schools on healthy relationships. Girls aged nine talked about which Playboy products they had and about their understanding of pornography. We had to bring that into our work with the children—we did not go in wanting to talk about pornography; they raised the issues with us. I expect Miss Bimbo, a new website game for girls, to come up in discussions soon. In the game, you own a bimbo and then buy things for them to make them appealing.
Who has access to that website?
Any child can access it; there is no age restriction.
So there is an issue about policing the internet and websites?
Definitely.
The NSPCC has considered whether the use of sexual imagery has increased, and found that it seems to be spreading. Originally, we had stuff such as clothing or T-shirts with sexual comments on them, but companies now produce make-up, perfumes and scents for young girls, including pre-10s, so that they can make themselves up and put on perfume just like their mummy or older sisters. A similar thing has happened with toys. We are concerned that some toys are highly sexual in their presentation. For example, Bratz dolls are famous for having small waists, large busts, miniskirts and fishnet stockings—that sort of appearance.
Music has been mentioned. Some music has become more sexual, but it is also now put on television channels such as MTV that come right into the home. It is not unusual for young children to watch music programmes or for young girls to mimic the female dancers.
One of the worrying trends is beauty treatment centres offering beauty parties for children. Instead of someone having a birthday party for their little girl, they take her and her friends to the beauty parlour, where they are made up and have their hair and nails done. Those parties are being aimed at five-year-olds. One beauty parlour that I saw almost made me laugh: it does hair, make-up and nails, but it also has a dressing-up box.
I agree that more research is needed, but what we are finding—I appreciate that it is anecdotal—is that the use of sexual imagery is now more pervasive. Instead of being used for just one or two things, it is used for a range of things and—I agree with Damian Carnell's comments—it gives a disturbing perspective of girls and young women. Everything is about improving image and appearance, to be more attractive to men. For boys and men, the issue is that they see those girls and young women as sexual objects because that is what they are being trained to become.
That is a useful contribution. From what we have heard so far, it is clear that there is real concern that children are not being allowed to be children any more, but are being targeted as adults.
I will play the devil's advocate a little. I agree entirely about the need for empirical evidence. The evidence that we have—including that which we have heard today—is substantially anecdotal. There is a critical need for empirical evidence. However, I wonder to what extent—if at all—adults are back-referencing these products in terms of their own perceptions of sexual material. Has anyone done any research or investigation into how the products are perceived by the children, rather than into adult perceptions of what constitutes sexually related goods?
That is a crucial question. Most of the research that has been done has been conducted by adults on adults' perceptions. There is a lack of research on kids' perceptions.
If you ask a four or five-year-old what they think of a Bratz doll, they will not say that it is sexy, because that is not in their vocabulary. They do not see it as sexy in that way. Also, if they dance provocatively to an MTV show, they do not understand what they are doing. However, by not understanding what they are doing, they lay themselves open to exploitation by paedophiles and so on. As I discussed with Marlyn Glen before the meeting, that is a real risk.
I am an academic, so I would always say that we need more research, but there is a lack of research into children's perceptions—especially those of younger children. There is an American report, which a lot of you will have seen, that deals with young women looking back at their teen years, but not a lot of work is done with teenagers, and even less is done with younger children because that would cause a problem. How could one, ethically, start talking to a six-year-old about sex? That would not necessarily be appropriate. Such research would therefore face quite a lot of challenges, although they might be overcome—I am sure that there are research techniques that could be used. Some thought needs to be given to it. You raise a really important point.
I echo the comments that have been made about the possible need to develop some research. The discussions that we have had in the trade union movement—certainly in the teaching sector and echoing comments around youth work—have focused on anecdotal evidence of the greater prevalence of sexual imagery, the pressure it puts on girls and young women around body image and the consequences of that for self-esteem.
There is a contradiction between the prevalence of sexual imagery and the curriculum for excellence and promotion work in schools that is aimed at encouraging young people to become confident individuals who respect basic values and equality. We will come later to the discussion about which images are bad, but I would say from conversations in the trade union movement that there is a concern that sexual imagery is becoming a greater problem.
Lots of trade unionists also bring experience from working in the shops that stock the goods, bringing up families and having discussions with their own children. The prevalence of sexual imagery undoubtedly affects self-esteem, which links to a conversation that we can have later about job prospects and opportunities and gender segregation in the labour market being reinforced—different issues that we would all agree need to be tackled.
I agree that there are some issues around empirical evidence. I do not have the figures in front of me, but it is probably worth referring to the work done by the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust that led to the introduction of the respect campaign in primary schools. It evidenced attitudes among young men and boys, particularly about acceptable language and treatment of girls. As the committee will know, the trust was supported by the Scottish Government to promote work in primary schools. There is some evidence in Scotland on the possible consequences of sexual imagery.
We are still discussing the prevalence of sexual imagery; we will widen out the discussion later.
I will start by talking about adults and then move on to children.
My experience of working with men who are violent against women is that although they are from different backgrounds and have different experiences, the common link is their belief in their right to control and dominate their partner. Their behaviour is directly linked to beliefs and attitudes. The question is where they get those attitudes from. Where do they learn those beliefs, and what do they see around them?
We can do a big piece of work with such men on their sexual beliefs about women and then they step out of the room and see a billboard poster across the road of a woman saying, "Think my clothes off." To them, all that we have done is then a load of rubbish as they take from the advert a certain idea of what women want.
The same applies to children and what they see around them. To the question, what do children understand about the products available to them that we as adults see as sexually objectifying and exploitative, I would say that although they might not understand the product from an adult's perspective, they will get their own ideas about it. If, for example, a child wants to grow up to be a pole dancer because she thinks it is a valid profession because a pole-dancing game was bought for her from Tesco, does that mean it is okay? If a child sees that some women make lots of money out of prostitution, does that make it okay?
In my work when talking about domestic violence, children as young as nine have a lot to say about respectful and abusive relationships. It is wonderful to engage with young people on respectful behaviour and attitudes, but in doing so we have to break through a lot of negative beliefs—certainly of boys, who seem to have deep-rooted beliefs of being superior to girls. My three-year-old daughter went to a little exercise class called Notts tots. Three boys of the age of three or four came straight up to her and said, "We don't like girls." Where do they get that attitude from?
My seven-year-old daughter went to a gym class where all the screens showed MTV videos. Sexual imagery is not just in the home; it is spread throughout children's environments. What magazines are on the racks for pupils in comprehensive schools? Empire is a film magazine, but what does it advertise in the back and what does that say about credible professions for girls?
So, effectively, they are accessing subliminal messages?
Yes.
I will offer a counter-perspective, starting with prevalence. You could knock me over with a Bratz feather boa if sexual imagery among children is not now more prevalent. That is also the case among adults. That is the key backdrop. A lot of what children are exposed to is a spillover from sexualised adulthood rather than a sexualised childhood.
A piece of research from the United States, which may or may not be relevant here in Scotland, considered the number of women in magazine and billboard advertisements who are partly dressed or undressed and the extent to which that has changed over the past 20 years. It found that women were partly dressed or undressed in half of the adverts and that that proportion is twice what it was 20 years ago. There is a sense across the Atlantic that that tendency is on the rise, which does not surprise me at all.
We are a new consumer organisation—we started last month—and the research that I have carried out on children as consumers shows that, by and large, they enjoy their life and their opportunities and experience as consumers. They enjoy the toys, and they lap up the T-shirts, but there is a sense of concern in some areas. For example, one boy aged 12 said, "I've seen things that I really don't want to see." In their messages to companies, children have said, "Don't sell us things that are bad for us."
Agnes Nairn used the words "sexy" and "sex". Many products are marketed as being "sexy". I think that it is an act of grammatical cowardice, but companies will draw a distinction between "sexy" and "sex". The T-shirts that we heard about earlier might say, "I'm cute. I'm hot. I'm everything you're not" or, "I'm cool. I'm hip. I'm your biggest treat" or, "So many boys. Too little time." They are marketed as being empowering for children and as being sexy rather than about sex. It is very easy to slip across that boundary.
This all connects with what Ann Henderson said about self-esteem. My understanding of early sexualisation is that it means finding value from seeing oneself with sexual attitudes or sexual behaviour. That comes down to a sense of self. It is deeply ensconced in the notion of beauty and how we understand it, as well as in gender. We know that the better adolescents feel about their own body, the better they feel about themselves. According to international research done by Dove, adolescents in the UK find it harder than those anywhere else in the world to think of themselves as, and feel, beautiful because of the images of perfection that surround them, which sell their anxieties back to them.
I should mention that Consumer Focus is a new organisation and has come from the merger of the old National Consumer Council, energywatch and Postwatch. We are pleased to have you here with us today.
I agree with everything Ann Henderson said. We will explore the issues around the sexualisation of girls in particular more fully later. It could perhaps be thought of as grooming from an early age.
We have been discussing sexual imagery. It is more prevalent now, as I notice when I go to the shops—although it might be more subtle than it has ever been. Are we more aware now that it is wrong to display such images to children? Ten years ago, it was all right to buy a little girl some bikini-type underwear, but we would just not buy that now, and we do not see it in the shops so much. Is that because adults are becoming more aware of the fact that such imagery is aimed at children as young as six months, a year or two years old? They do not know what sex is, but adults do. Are adults becoming more aware and raising the issues?
Playboy has been mentioned. That company sent a letter to the committee saying that one pencil case—to speak about a playboy item—should not be displayed in the vicinity of goods aimed at children, but that begs the question what 18-year-old would be going about with a pink pencil case with Playboy bunnies on it. We must consider the subtlety of the marketing as well. Are adults becoming more aware of what is wrong and that we need to protect children, because they certainly do not know?
It was good to get assurances in writing from Playboy that it takes seriously the way in which goods are displayed and the appropriateness of its logo appearing on some goods. The problem seemed to be with the licensees and how much power and clout Playboy has to rein them in if they overstep the mark.
I was just using that as an example; I was not attacking Playboy. The question I was posing is whether adults are more conscious of the problem. It is good if we are.
Do any of the witnesses have a view on that from the shopkeepers' perspective?
I think that we might be more sensitised to what is going on, which is possibly a good thing.
I have been thinking about whether we have empirical evidence for an increase in sexual imagery aimed at children and whether Ed Mayo will be knocked down with a feather boa. I interpret "increasing" as meaning increasing over time, so that there is more such imagery now than there used to be. How would we measure that? If we take the internet, there is no question but that everything is more prevalent because kids can access more or less whatever they want whenever they want. Between 70 and 80 per cent of kids—even young kids—now have multichannel television sets in their bedroom and the figure goes up year on year. About 30-odd per cent of kids have internet access in their bedroom. It would be nice to do an empirical study on the prevalence of sexual imagery but, given the ubiquity of the internet and the media in children's private spheres, there is probably little question but that it has increased.
So technology has a huge part to play in the increase in prevalence?
Yes, exactly. It is a major factor. All kids have mobile phones. In a few years' time, they will all have internet-enabled mobile phones and will be able to Bluetooth pornographic pictures round the classroom in two seconds flat.
The issue is not only that the new technology is changing the world and that kids are the pioneers, but that its use is unmediated by parents. Before, parents had greater control over what their children could access, but they have less power now even if they are more alert to the issues.
Shop workers have worked in shops for many years. Do you have a feel for whether they think things are changing?
It is not possible to put a figure on it. I am not sure that I agree with the comments that have been made about increased awareness among adults. We must consider who is marketing skimpy little toddler T-shirts with slogans on and why. If people were not buying such goods, nobody would make them. The anecdotal evidence from the shop floor is that an increasing number of people are buying them. Therefore, for us, the questions are more why the increase is happening and who benefits from it. We would certainly argue that their sale is not beneficial to society or to the equality that we seek to achieve.
All the trade unions, including the shop workers unions, were represented at the annual Scottish Trades Union Congress women's conference two weeks ago. At that conference, there was unanimous support again for strong policy positions on tackling violence against women and for doing everything we can, at whatever level and wherever we can to tackle it.
The figures and evidence show, as members know, that we are not making an impact on violence against women such as rape and assault. At the conference, all the trade unions made contributions, and we heard some powerful contributions—as happens every year—from women speaking about their and fellow workers' experiences of sexualised violence in the workplace.
That is the context—we do not have the figures, but we would be happy to explore the issue further with the committee. If a survey or some research is pulled together, we will be happy to take it back to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the other unions that have expressed strong views.
Products such as bikinis for girls are still around, and there are now more varieties to choose from. High-heeled slipper shoes for baby girls who cannot even walk are now available. If something is marketed and it is out there, children learn that it must be okay. In a sense we, as parents and as a community, promote ideas. We might promote positive ideas, but when things that we might not view as positive are promoted, children might still view those as being okay.
That is very helpful. We will move on.
As far as I understand it—this might be rather naive—we are looking at a triangle, in which there is a consumer, a supplier and a retailer. I am quite disappointed that we do not have any retailers at the table, because that means that there is a gap in the discussion. The retailers were invited, so it is disappointing that they have failed to appear, although we have received some written evidence from them.
I have two questions. To what extent does each of the three sides of the triangle bear responsibility? I think Ann Henderson and others have touched on that. Is it the parent who has to—to quote a phrase that was used in another context—just say no, with all the pester pressure that parents get? Is it manufacturers who create the demand in the first place, or are they simply supplying goods? Do retailers ultimately have to take responsibility by saying that they will not stock certain products? I am interested in where panel members think responsibility lies.
It might be useful to advise everyone about the organisations that we invited to the discussion, some of which were unable, or declined, to attend. They include Playboy Enterprises Inc, which provided a written submission; Asda, which declined the invitation; the Scottish Grocers Federation, which felt that it does not have input to make and could not contribute much; and USDAW, which also declined.
The Scottish Retail Consortium provided a written submission, but feels that the issue is nothing to do with it—although from reading the written submission, I would certainly say that the SRC has something to say on the subject. The parenting across Scotland group was unable to attend, as was Sue Palmer, although she kindly suggested Dr Agnes Nairn, who is with us today. That is the background—we tried to get a balance of views, but some elements are not represented as well as we had hoped.
I apologise for arriving late. My question might have been answered already. It might be best addressed to Dr Nairn.
Imagery is not exclusively marketed on a sexual or a gendered basis, and it is obvious that women are as influenced by it as men. It is almost always women who buy the type of inappropriate clothing for children that was described earlier by Sandra White, so it is clear that they are influenced by the imagery as well. It does not make much sense to buy such clothes unless you are trying to inculcate in your children that they might be sex objects later in life. Is an education process required here? Should society as a whole be educated in order to get people away from the idea that they should be buying such goods for their children, which might in turn influence the children to buy such clothes for themselves later on?
We will come to that, but we want to explore Hugh O'Donnell's question first. I probably threw everyone off by telling you who had been invited to give evidence. I ask Tom Narducci to respond, followed by Agnes Nairn.
There were a couple of interesting points there, one of which was about checking with children. If we were discussing sexual abuse, we would be using the concept of informed consent—a child cannot consent to something that he or she does not fully understand. One of the problems with investigating children's attitudes to sexual imagery, clothing and behaviours is that you are in effect asking them to express views on something whose implications they cannot fully understand. If this was a court, we would not accept that: we would be saying that children do not understand the implications and are therefore not in a position to say yes or no. We should keep informed consent as a baseline when we are working with children. We should not ask them to have views about things that we believe they do not understand.
The other issue that was raised for me partly relates to the written submission from Playboy. As we all know, we are living in an increasingly sexual environment. Someone mentioned the internet and the wide variety of television channels. If we examine that, we can see an increase in sexual imagery for children. What is equally disturbing is that there is a sort of blurring of the sexual and sexy images of women and children. There is also the move towards size zero models in fashion. Some of the people who promote adult styles in fashions have virtually no bust. Very young girls are being used—girls with no adult female shape. To some extent those models are looking increasingly like children. They are being put in highly sexualised outfits on the catwalks. That may or may not be appropriate for women—there are people here who know much more about the position of women in society than I would claim to—but it causes a blurring between sexual and sexy in relation to the crossover from children to adults. That is a matter of concern.
I read the submission from Playboy and saw no reference to the direct selling of the Playboy image. The company said that it is careful to ensure that its magazines are put on the top shelf and that they are not next to magazines that are aimed at children. That is fine. I acknowledge and appreciate the thought that Playboy gives to that. What the submission did not address—I certainly did not see it—was how, if we take the logo for an organisation that was founded in the early 1950s and is based on the sexualisation of women, and impose it on children, there will be no implications. I was quite disappointed. Before coming to the committee, I did some research. The front cover of the current issue of Playboy shows a young model with her hair in bunches, wearing only white schoolgirl socks and holding a teddy bear. There is that blurring between what is sexy and sexual for women, and children. The logo of the company is now being promoted to children—it is interesting that the company chose not to comment on that.
I want to pick up on Hugh O'Donnell's question about whether the manufacturers or the retailers should be responsible, or whether it should be up to parents to say no. Obviously, all of them have to be responsible. They should all get into one room and talk to one another, so it is a real shame that they are not in this room now, having this conversation.
In its submission, Playboy went to great lengths to stress that it forbids its retailers to place any Playboy merchandise next to any kids' brands—the submission mentioned Hello Kitty specifically. I was in Bath on Saturday and took a picture of Playboy stuff right next to Hello Kitty stuff, on the same shelf.
The way in which guidelines are implemented seems to be an issue.
There is obviously a breakdown of communication. Playboy has strong guidelines—which it underlines and puts in bold font—but retailers are saying that it is not their problem. The products are clearly being targeted at children; there is no other way you can put it. They are placed on the shelves beside children's products.
Are you therefore saying that responsibility lies with the manufacturers, or with the licensees?
Whose responsibility should it be? Things should be more joined up. The manufacturer says that it has guidelines, but if it does they are not being put into practice in WH Smith.
Should everyone be educated? Well, yes. In the obesity debate, manufacturers always say that it is up to parents to just say no. However, when those manufacturers are spending millions and millions of pounds on advertising to get the kids to say yes, it becomes an uneven contest. Where is the balance of power? The power is not just spending power but information power. Do parents have enough power to know that buying a toddler's jacket that says "bitch magnet" is unacceptable? However, retailers and manufacturers should not be selling such things in the first place.
Yes. The phrase "community of interest" has been used. It is a good phrase.
Yes.
The Scottish Retail Consortium says that its members advertise directly to parents, and that toys in particular are advertised to adults to buy for their children. I want to understand what makes them think that they are advertising to parents and not to children. There is room for discussion and, if people's aim is to advertise to parents, they could be supported to do it in a better way.
If you go into WH Smith's today and consider how magazines are set out on the shelves, you will see that the idea of the top shelf is a farce, because it is still visible to children. On the bottom shelf, CBeebies magazine is next to Barbie which is next to Bliss; but a little further along there are newspapers such as the Sunday Sport and The Daily Star. The images on the front pages of those newspapers are at ground level. On the second shelf you will find Loaded and Zoo, with their sexualised imagery; on the third shelf you will find more of the lads mags; and on the top shelf you will find Playboy. It is all connected.
Children will look around. What do boys take from seeing all that sexualised imagery of women? What do girls take from it? Children look at society—they see their parents, the shops, the leisure centre and TV as all being parts of society—and if we put all this imagery in front of children, they think, "Well, it must be okay, because they're the adults and they're telling us what is right and what is wrong. If it's there it must be right."
I work with boys between 12 and 16 and we ask them about the magazines that they read. They talk about the lads mags, and we ask about what is in them and what sort of language is used. They say that there is nothing else for them, although we have told them that these magazines objectify women and they can see that. They ask, "What else is there for us?" I say, "That's a good question." What was around for me? I remember that there was Roy of the Rovers, and Shoot magazine. Clearly, they contained some attitudes about male supremacy over women, but they did not overtly sexualise women.
As a child, I did not have available to me a dartboard that showed the torso of a woman, but that product is now available for boys to play on. It has two targets to hit with darts. What does that encourage? It does not encourage respectful behaviour towards women. Responsible retailing, marketing and products should be about encouraging respectful attitudes and behaviour. If that was the case, we would not have the problems that we have today, such as the increase in teenage pregnancy and what seems to be a never-ending high level of violence against women and girls. Many efforts have been made to tackle that, but they do not make a difference. What is that about? Is it because—
So it is important to consider both the content of goods and the way in which they are displayed.
Yes.
This is a fascinating discussion and there are many directions that we could take. I think there is consensus that the cultural shift that we are discussing is not good for society, but it would be sad if we regarded our society as powerless. I do not want to be seen as powerless or naive about the matter.
There is consensus among everyone we have been in touch with, including Playboy, that protection of children is important. We should put it on the record that Tesco did withdraw the pole-dancing kits. When complaints are made, there are changes. People can also be powerful and work individually. For example, someone removed the Playboy stuff from one branch of WH Smith.
In its submission, Playboy states clearly that it only targets over-18s. However, we have to be realistic. The film "House Bunny" is for a 12A audience—that is how it was badged, although that is not Playboy's responsibility. Also on sale were spectacles for little girls with the Playboy bunny logo on them. Those were not targeted at anyone else because they would not fit anyone else.
To return to what Bill Kidd said, we must be realistic about the power of the pornography industry. We cannot skirt around that. We talk about the increasing use of technology, but the money for the improvements and the increasing use of technology came from the pornography industry. If we do not recognise that, we will not make any difference. We must be realistic about how powerful, profitable and global the pornography industry is, but we must also not feel powerless about it.
I am interested in what was said about the Playboy logo. Everybody knows about pester power, which arises when kids ask for something. Should we make a connection between pester power and sexual grooming? Is that what we are seeing throughout our society?
I cannot think of a single organisation that does not have guidelines. All organisations have them, including drinks manufacturers that have dead trade unionists on their factory floors and pornography organisations that sell pornographic material. They all say that they will do X, Y and Z.
The question that I wanted to put to Playboy—I cannot do that, but I will put it on the record anyway—was to ask how many enforcers it has to ensure that its guidelines are met. How many organisations or companies has it told, "We will no longer supply you because you are breaking our guidelines"? If the company cannot show that it does those things, its guidelines are valueless. I would have liked representatives of Playboy to be here to answer those questions. They are not here, but I still want my questions to be on the record.
That strays into the measures that can be taken. From what we have heard this morning, there is a lot to be said about that, but I think we should stay with the impact.
What is the impact of such imagery on children? What are its negative effects on not just little girls, but boys? We are talking about increasingly sexualised imagery.
Like Bill Wilson, I am disappointed that the Scottish Retail Consortium is not present, because the matter comes down to individual shops, too. The SRC says in its submission that it
"does not believe that … the Committee's focus is relevant to the retail sector",
which is ridiculous. The consortium refers to the committee making a statement and says that the issue is up to parents—it absolves retailers. That is wrong. I am disappointed by the SRC's attitude that the matter is nothing to do with it. Retailers stock the products, which they say are bought by parents, but that is the result of pester power.
I will throw open a couple of other matters. Damian Carnell talked about boys and the effect of the imagery on children. As I said, I agree with Ann Henderson. Through such imagery, we groom children from an early age to conform to stereotypes. As we have heard, girls starve themselves to attain a certain image and women do not receive equal pay, while boys might become violent and might not treat women as we would like them to be treated in a decent and equal society. I will leave it there, because others want to speak.
I take Damian Carnell's point about the availability of alternative entertainment, but I am cautious about citing Eagle and The Hotspur, given that racism prevailed in them.
We have spoken all around the issue. What ages are children and when do they stop being children? That is it.
The impact of the imagery and of the more sexualised environment—the cultural norm of overt sexualisation—involves several risks. The first is dissatisfaction among girls with their self-image, which has been mentioned: they try to live up to an impossible ideal. It is interesting that much of the content in question-and-answer sections in young girls' magazines is sexual. Much of that content is responsible, and clear and precise answers are given, but it is countered by the rest of the magazine, which contains idealised images of what good appearance is, what a beautiful girl is and what is attractive. There is no point in giving good advice about having a healthy self-image in a magazine that is full of images that cannot be achieved. That almost sets people up to fail.
Somebody touched on questions about female development and self-identity and the impact on women's ability to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex, if that is their choice. Those issues are out there.
Much more worrying from a child protection and safeguarding perspective is the fact that people who sexually offend against young girls almost always try to blame the girls, and to justify what they did by saying that the girl consented in some way. A risk lies in telling girls that the ideal is to look sexy and be attractive and compliant and that they should strive to become attractive to men. We then sell them push-up bras and knickers with crude sayings on them—the worst that I have come across was a pair of girls' knickers that said, "Who needs credit cards?" which is a fairly blunt message. That gives paedophiles a greater ability to justify their abuse of girls. In effect, they say that the girl was sexualised and claim that, because she dressed and acted the part, she was a willing partner. As with domestic violence, the victim gets the blame; the girl's sexualisation becomes the justification for abusing her.
Of course, that takes us into more worrying and serious areas such as child prostitution and child trafficking. If we accept that children—young girls, in particular—can be seen as sexual objects, we might well start to talk about the ability to have sexual relationships with them and to make a marketable commodity out of that. I do not want anyone to underplay the importance of ensuring that young girls are safe and that they do not get drawn into something that might hold untold dangers for them.
You have raised some very serious and worthwhile points. We have to remember that these are somebody's daughters or sisters.
I imagine that Dr Nairn, in particular, will have something to say about this but, in response to Hugh O'Donnell and others, I point out that the age at which a child is still legally a child—and the accompanying legal framework—varies incredibly throughout Europe. I believe that Estonia has the highest age limit, at 21 or 22.
As far as industry codes of conduct are concerned, we are trying to delineate what is and what is not responsible. Many industry codes focus on children under 16; indeed, some of the food companies that in previous years had received significant criticism have started to do the right thing by those children. Pepsi-Cola, for example, has started to do some quite good stuff online.
It is important to recognise that the concerns about impact are serious and are backed up by evidence. Damian Carnell mentioned teenage pregnancy, and the committee will be aware of figures for early sexual activity. In her book "The Story of Childhood: Growing Up in Modern Britain", Libby Brooks says that although this younger generation is supposedly the most sexually self-confident and sexually active ever, a third of girls say that they have been coerced into sex and many more have expressed regret at starting their sexual lives so early. It is a knife-edge issue.
Moreover, the American Psychological Association report that Dr Agnes Nairn refers to in her submission is a very powerful review of the evidence of the impact of early sexualisation on girls, in particular, but also on boys. The results that the association recorded include emotional distress, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and depression. School work can be affected, with girls dropping out of subjects such as higher level mathematics.
It appears that, in the United States at least, some girls are more resilient; for example, girls from black and minority ethnic groups might be more resistant to the images of white beauty that surround them. Some boys, on the other hand, can end up with the idea of girls as sexual objects, which might jeopardise their ability to form and maintain intimate relationships in the future. On top of the various psychological scars, girls can also lose out with regard to their own sexual self-image—which, ironically, can mean that they have less chance of a happy and healthy sex life in the future.
The issue raises wider questions about young people's mental health to which, I have to say, we do not have the answers that we might want. That said, in a scrapbook of evidence that I have been collecting about how children use adverts, what they have been exposed to and the results of qualitative and quantitative surveys, I have some direct quotes about children's discomfort with some of the images of beauty and sexuality that they see around them. There are solutions to the problem, but I hope to discuss them later.
Talking of later, I ask the next couple of speakers to be concise so that we can move on to the last section, which will be important as a conclusion to the discussion.
I want to talk about what I think are contradictions in public policy that arise as a consequence of the matters that we have discussed. At one level, those matters completely reinforce heterosexuality and a particular image, which causes difficulty for other cultural groups in our society. That situation runs alongside public policy aspirations, which the trade union movement supports, for achieving and promoting equality and not promoting images of, for example, heterosexuality that cause difficulties for young gay people at an early age. There is a further contradiction around the development of an effective sexual health strategy. We are aware of that issue because of the difficulties that health workers and social workers face in delivering the service that they want to deliver, which is one that involves confidence, self-esteem and advice rather than objectification. The issues that we have been discussing contradict all that.
As a society and broader community, we have clear policies. However, the matters that we have discussed and their negative effects cut across the ability to deliver policy outcomes and are bad for health, as Ed Mayo's comments demonstrated. For instance, work on encouraging girls to be more involved in sport runs parallel with our knowledge that the body image that they are being sold cuts across any encouragement that they get to run about a muddy field or whatever. We are investing in trying to get women and girls more involved in sport at the same time as allowing the development of images that make them much more self-conscious about participating in sport. The trade union movement has been doing work on encouraging women to pursue careers in different fields, such as science, but the matters that we have discussed are undoing a lot of that work at the same time as we are trying to promote it. I would be interested in working with people to explore that aspect further.
I have some research statistics from the NSPCC and Sugar magazine. Forty-five per cent of teenage girls have had their bottom or breast groped against their wishes; 56 per cent of unwanted early sexual experiences occurred for the first time when the girls were under 14; and 44 per cent of girls were made to feel guilty for initially saying no. Girls talked about being bribed with money, being threatened with rumours being spread about them and being forcibly intoxicated, which led them into unwanted sexual experiences.
The Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust states that one in two—
Can you trace that information back to what we have been discussing? We have been trying hard to concentrate on the issue of sexual imagery that is aimed at children.
Okay. I will comment on what boys believe. One in two young men believes that, in certain circumstances, they can force young women to have sex. They believe that girls and women dress or behave in a way that means they are asking for it. Where do young men get that kind of understanding from? I asked boys aged 12 to 16 with whom I have worked what the qualities of being male are, and they said, "Being strong, dominant and thinking-outside-the-box tough." When I asked them what the qualities of being female are, they said, "Being loving, caring and gentle." My question then was whether men cannot be loving, caring and gentle. Again, where do they get those messages from? We should ask what we want our younger generation to grow up believing and thinking, and then consider what we produce to support that.
Sandra White will introduce the last section.
My question is for all the witnesses. We have heard a lot of good evidence and have talked about policing the internet. However, what can be done to ensure that the kind of goods that we have talked about are not targeted at children?
I have three or four possible solutions. I will pick out the first; I can go through the others, too, if the committee would find that useful.
In the middle of the triangle that Hugh O'Donnell drew for us is a range of creative and marketing agencies that do much of the work that informs product design and promotion by way of advertising and the like. I have a simple suggestion to make: the Scottish Government spends many millions of pounds on public advertising. It could remove from its roster for Government work any creative agencies that have transgressed in their wider work by promoting sexual imagery to children. The suggestion is not only simple but practical. If the Government were to do that, it would take a lead across Britain on the subject and send a powerful message to the industry.
I return to Hugh O'Donnell's question on the age at which childhood ends. When we talk about the sexualisation of children, we mean the age at which children become sexually mature—puberty. We are therefore talking about 12 for girls and 14 for boys. That is important to remember, irrespective of legislation around advertising or any other area in which all sorts of ages are involved in the definition of a child. In this discussion, we are talking about the age at which children are ready to have sex.
In previous generations, children got married at 12. In those days, being sexually active at the age of 12 was completely sanctioned. Given that some children are sexually active at 12 or 13, the action that needs to be taken for them should involve educational initiatives. Once a child is sexually active, one cannot ban them from seeing pornography or anything else. It is pointless to try to do that.
That said, a respect agenda needs to be rolled out in schools, and parents also need to give out that message. We could reach parents through a public awareness campaign that the central office of information, for example, could co-ordinate. Other parties, such as magazines, need to be encouraged to become involved by including respect articles, for example. I am aware that I should have looked at the website that Playboy set up for parents, but I have not yet done so.
I understand that the Advertising Standards Authority, which is a UK body, has received 700 complaints from members of the public about sexual issues in advertising for children. The ASA realises how big the issue is. It could be used to put on more pressure. The issue involves the agencies that create the adverts, the manufacturers and the retailers.
I will reinforce that point. Whatever work the committee decides to take forward, it is important that you acknowledge the difference in children's ages. What is appropriate for the over-10s is inappropriate for the under- 10s—we should treat them almost as separate groups. The answer to the question "What is a child?" is that children are a multitude of groups and have different understandings and different access to things.
Responsibility is an important issue that arose earlier. We discussed what has become the cultural norm that manufacturers, producers, retailers, publishers and so on have created, but the people who go out and buy the products are usually the parents. If we were to consider education, one question that should be aimed at parents is, "When you buy something like high-heeled shoes for babies or a push-up bra and knickers from Asda for your 8-year-old, what message are you giving your daughter?" We should be asking them not just to think, "That's cute," or, "That's a bit of fun," but to think about the implicit message behind the product.
I recognise the strength of pester power, but we would not say that it was okay for children to ask their parents to buy them a line of cocaine; we would say that that was wrong, that a line of cocaine is harmful, and that parents cannot buy it for them, even if their children pester them all day long. Parents should be empowered in some way to be just as strong with other things that we recognise as wrong and harmful for children and to say that they will not buy them. In extreme cases, there should be supporting legal sanctions that show the lines that cannot be crossed. I am not suggesting that there should be a criminal offence, but it would be wrong to take aim at retailers, manufacturers and children and not have a strong input with the parents and adults who buy the stuff.
Before I ask everyone, as I generally do at the end of round-table discussions, briefly to sum up the main points that they have taken from the discussion, do Ann Henderson and Damian Carnell want to answer Sandra White's question?
I am interested in further exploring how procurement guidance could be used. We in the trade union movement are considering that matter a lot with regard to equality duties and their overlap with good practice in the workplace. We would definitely be interested in exploring that issue further.
I am mindful that one reason why a trade union representative was invited to the meeting was to incorporate the perspective of shop workers into the discussion. I would be interested in asking the Scottish Retail Consortium to be more precise. It has said that it has a mechanism through which shop workers can raise issues about what they find difficult on the shop floor. The experience of many people who are not managers is probably that it is quite difficult to change what is sold on the shelves in their shops. We could explore that issue.
The wider impact on many trade union members, such as nurses, social services workers and teachers, is also an issue for us. That fits into the context of the continuum of violence against women and other equality issues. We must consider a wider sector of workers and their experience of such things manifesting themselves as problems in their work.
In its submission, the Scottish Retail Consortium says that
"communication is key in the retail sector",
and it highlights the fact that inappropriate goods are often identified, and changes made, as a result of communication. It is therefore appropriate to ask about that.
As a parent, the choice of products out there to buy for children is an issue. When one of my daughters was three, she asked me whether girls are allowed to play football. I said to her that that was an interesting question. She said, "When we go to the park, we see men and boys playing football." That made me think that I must put extra effort into finding where girls and women play football so that she could see them doing so. She has also asked for a book about women footballers. I went on to the internet last night, but could not find such a book; I found programmes, but no books about women footballers. What is not being offered to children is an issue.
Obviously, I believe that there should be tougher guidelines for retailers and producers. We talk about educating parents about the consequences of messages that they might give to children by buying certain products, but what education do producers and retailers need? We should ask the person who came up the idea of designing high-heeled shoes for baby girls why they did so. What education do they need?
I invite everyone around the table to make any final brief points that they want to make.
I thank all the external participants and, of course, my committee colleagues. We have identified the fact that there are huge gaps in our knowledge and understanding, and that anomalies in how society is structured exist. We cannot blame children for that; we must blame the adults who created that society. Perhaps we need to look to ourselves for remedies, but I would hate to return to a Victorian age in which such issues are hidden and not discussed. In that context, the discussion has been valuable.
I will conclude by mentioning one or two solutions. First, I have written to the Advertising Association, which sits behind the Advertising Standards Authority, to ask that children's websites, which are covered with advertisements, some of which are for dating sites and adult activities such as gambling, be treated as though they were advertising. If that were to happen, children's websites would come within the remit of the ASA, which could then insist that adverts were labelled as adverts and that the appropriate responsibility guidelines were applied. That is a small but creative suggestion, which I think would make a difference.
Secondly, I commend to the committee Consumer Focus Scotland's work with the Scottish Government on guidelines for public sector bodies—including schools—that work with commercial partners. An intelligent set of rules was launched during the past few weeks, which aims to guide public sector workers about where responsibility lies on issues that arise when companies are brought into the public space.
Thirdly, on education, I caution against stigmatisation of parents and finger-wagging exercises, which do not work, whether or not we believe in what we are saying. We have to start from where parents are. In Scotland we have a beacon of excellence in the work of Professor Gerard Hastings and others on social marketing. The social marketing toolkit provides a good approach to considering practical behaviour change and quality interventions in that regard. Much of what passes for education is not a particularly effective use of money.
Finally, companies sell high-heeled shoes to babies because doing so gets them news coverage and sales. We are in an open, liberal market and we have to be careful that we do not act in a way that promotes the commercial agenda of minor companies. We do not need moral panic; we need a reasoned programme of action.
We have just heard that Vera Baird's plane was delayed. She is on her way here in a taxi, but we will not have to end this part of the meeting at 11 o'clock on the dot, as I had intended us to do, so the witnesses can make fuller closing comments.
That is fine. I will take an hour.
On my way to the meeting I read some of the literature that says that children are completely on top of the sexualised content that we have been considering, because they are using it ironically and in an empowered way. I have heard no support for that view from other witnesses. Although it is a valid view, concern for children is much greater than the celebration of children's empowerment in the sexual sphere. That is the first point that we should take away from the meeting.
The second point that we should take away is the great need to get all the parties round the table. It is very sad that retailers and manufacturers did not attend the meeting. I have been doing quite a lot of work recently to get advertisers and non-governmental organisations together to consider advertising to and the commercialisation of children. If industry is to be brought to the table, we must, first, be pragmatic and not approach the issue from a standpoint of moral panic and finger-wagging, which will frighten industry off. Secondly, we must offer a business case.
In relation to Damian Carnell's comments, boys and girls will always be different, so to say that they do different things will not work for industry—there are some lines that we cannot take. What would work with business would be to say that the social responsibility agenda is important and powerful. If businesses can be shown to be leaders in that regard, that will earn them a great deal of credence, including with young people, who want above all to be respected, as Ed Mayo and I have found in our work. If companies can show that they are responsible they will get respect from the next generation of consumers.
The other thing that will bring businesses to the table is empirical evidence. If businesses think that a pragmatic debate is taking place and that they will be viewed as responsible, and if they see that there is an evidence base rather than moral panic behind what is being said, there is a good chance that we can bring everyone together, which is hugely important.
We are not creating moral panic in recognising that there is misogyny throughout society—we are acknowledging reality, as our evidence session on pornography showed. Rather than being liberal with manufacturers and retailers who sell things that damage our young people, we should be considering doing a lot more than finger waving—perhaps we should consider legislating. I am concerned that a laissez-faire attitude will let the issue drift.
The reality of the power of the big industries that push pornography cannot be ignored. I do not mean to create moral panic—I am talking about violence against women, and about little girls who might not have a future because of that. We have to make something work, but there is a sense of urgency. I pass that one on to Tom Narducci.
I—and the NSPCC—would be concerned if the debate was hijacked, in the sense of people thinking that Children 1st and the NSPCC were just trying to take the moral high ground. I do not think for a moment that that is what I or either of the two safeguarding organisations want to do.
It is important to remember that the debate is about the health, wellbeing and safety of children—that is the bottom line. If people get upset by being challenged about things, so be it—I do not have a problem with that. That does not mean that I do not seek to engage with retailers and manufacturers, but we should not allow a situation to develop in which the issue is viewed as people interfering in the free market or imposing their values and morals on others. I want the safety and wellbeing of children to be the bottom line. As an organisation, the NSPCC would be happy to be involved in or make a contribution to any future work that the committee felt was necessary.
I am sorry that we do not have longer to discuss the issue, because it is really important. We started off by talking about kiddies' high heels—that was absolutely terrible. The issue affects the whole of society—it is not just about girls' prospects, but about the way in which men view girls' prospects.
There are a couple of practical issues. We could consider contracts, although I do not know how that would work. We should certainly consider legislation in relation to the internet, and not only for advertising, but for things such as the Miss Bimbo website.
I have been struck by the educational aspect—we should perhaps call it a public awareness campaign. That relates to the point I made at the beginning of the discussion. We all go to Christmas concerts at this time of year, and 10, or even five, years ago I would not have been as aware as I am now of young girls being so sexually provocative on the stage at two and three years old. I would have accepted it, but I am much more aware now. I say to parents, "This kid is gyrating in front of you and singing the words of a provocative song—they're only three." Parents do not think of it in that way, so perhaps they are not aware, and they are not to blame. They are not aware of the fact that that could affect their kid's life for the next 20 or 30 years. Perhaps we need a public awareness campaign to address that.
I am certainly becoming much more aware of what is being sold in shops and how kids are reacting, even in school plays. When we tell the general public that, they say, "It's only a play", but if we point out the reality to them, they realise that their kids are learning new words and gyrating provocatively on a stage when performing a song. According to some, it is innocent fun, but it affects children throughout their lives. I hope that we can take a public awareness campaign out of this discussion.
As Malcolm Chisholm has just joined us, I assume that he does not want to contribute in the summing up. Is that correct?
I apologise; I was speaking as part of a delegation at the City of Edinburgh Council, which I had to visit this morning. I apologise for not being present, but I shall read the Official Report with great interest. This is an important subject, which I take seriously.
I reiterate Sandra White's point about a public awareness campaign, which should be directed towards maintaining and giving strength to parents' responsibilities. Most parents are responsible, and we should not berate them. However, they are under pressure because manufacturers, retailers, advertisers and the media exist for a reason. They do not spend billions of pounds to advertise products for the good of their health. We have to combat some of the ill effects of that expenditure and the vacuousness of celebrity that they promote. That celebrity is based on imagery, and advertisers are always quick to latch on to that and use it. We must raise public awareness so that parents consider what they are encouraging their children to be part of. Today's debate is a good basis from which to kick off.
The STUC would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate, and we look forward to continuing to work on some of the issues that have been raised. The debate on sexual imagery has crucial consequences for the workforce and society of the future. The discussion has been about the impact on children, but we should consider the context as the consequences for equality and for women's lives in the future.
Let me touch on the question of the business case for bringing people to the table as an example. Much of our work in promoting equality in the workplace and the dialogue between trade unions and employers on productive workplaces can be linked back to some of the issues that women face, including being on the receiving end of sexual harassment and abusive behaviour and the impact that domestic violence has on attendance at work. If the issues of sexual imagery are not addressed in that context, they will continue to affect people's working lives and businesses. There are many ways in which the conversation can be addressed, including consideration of the workforce of the future.
We need to value women and bring up our children and young people to understand that women should be respected and valued and that they have a full contribution to make to society. I agree that how we treat our children is important, but we must remember the context in which that happens.
We should not underestimate the difference that is made when politicians speak up. I am hearing calls for a public awareness campaign. When politicians speak up, that gives a voice to other people, who may not previously have felt empowered to say that something was a problem or that they felt bad when they saw a certain billboard outside their shop window or house.
When Clare Short did some work on page 3 and degrading images of women as available sex objects, including introducing a bill in the Westminster Parliament, she was subjected to a serious vilification campaign by The Sun and the pornography industry. However, she has said that, as soon as she went public with her intention to introduce a bill in the House of Commons, she was inundated with supportive letters from women and men, saying that it would make a difference and that it struck a chord with what they felt. Politicians who take the available opportunities will make a space for people to realise that it is legitimate for them to feel uncomfortable about such issues.
I look forward to continuing to work with the committee.
I reiterate that I am very cynical about the written evidence that was submitted by the organisations that refused to attend the meeting to answer questions. I wish that sweet reason would work with industry, but I regret that it does not do so. I can think of a major drinks conglomerate that is perfectly aware that trade unionists have been killed and that it is turning areas into desert. However, that knowledge does not make it stop that behaviour; it makes it look for a social responsibility clause that will cover up its activities. If we want to tackle the issues that we have been talking about, legislation will probably be required.
Other European companies do not allow advertising that is aimed at children under a certain age. Why do we allow such advertising?
I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. I will briefly share my experience during the past four weeks. I have been working with a year 5 class of nine and 10-year-olds. In my first session with them, the children completed a questionnaire in which they were asked whether various behaviours justify any type of domestic violence. Only 5 per cent of the class ticked the box that said violence would never be justified. There is an attitude according to which domestic violence is sometimes justifiable. Some boys came out with comments such as, "Men don't do the cleaning and the cooking. Those are women's jobs."
In the fourth and final session, pupils completed the same questionnaire and 95 per cent said that domestic violence was never justified. The boys who had talked about women's jobs in session 1 wrote a very rhythmic song entitled, "Respect", which they performed. They sang about how respect means that men are involved in cooking, cleaning and caring for children. I thought that that was a great achievement. Education is important, but it needs to be backed up by much more in society, because its effects will be whittled away if they are not supported.
I apologise for my late arrival. My street had turned into the north face of the Eiger this morning. I do not want to tell you how dreadful my journey was.
What I have heard of the discussion has been fascinating. A problem that people might have talked about is that we can come across as a bit po-faced and humourless when we discuss such matters. I think that parents wrestle with the problem—Ann Henderson talked about parents. The issue might seem to belong at the margins of politics but I think that people want it to be discussed. Parents are constantly asking themselves whether something is appropriate for their children.
I am the mother of a son and a daughter and I worry that they are crushed by the expectations that are placed on boys and girls by inappropriate imagery and goals. Marlyn Glen talked about how serious it is that girls of 13 or 14 should feel forced into behaving in ways that they have not actively chosen, which can lead to a great many problems. Boys, too, are struggling with expectations. The issue can be trivialised—I always had a dilemma about Barbie dolls and the colour pink and so on—but parents are genuinely looking for support.
Tom Narducci talked about how inappropriate sexualisation becomes a justification for abuse. That is frightening, and it goes to the heart of the issue. I hope that the committee will take the matter further and I hope that when people reflect on what the committee and our expert witnesses have said they will acknowledge that the issue is serious and should not be dismissed as marginal to our lives. Many families worry a great deal about it.
I thank everyone for their comments. We have had a fascinating discussion. I think that we have established that there is a prevalence of sexual imagery in goods aimed at children, although more research is needed to back up that statement. The issue is complex and numerous parties are involved—unwittingly or wittingly—in promoting such imagery. We need education and awareness and I hope that our session has contributed in that regard.
I will take away from the discussion the Australian Parliament's comment that the issue is a community responsibility. I am pleased that representatives of the media are in the public seats and I hope that they will reflect on the discussion, which has been constructive. Often when such issues—and some of their darker sides—are discussed, more heat than light is generated. Today we managed to generate more light than heat and I sincerely hope that the issue, which is important for many young people and their parents and relatives, will be reported in a way that makes a difference. I thank everyone for their contributions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—