§ 17. Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to amend the Obscene Publications Act.
§ Mr. TaverneNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HamlingIs my hon. and learned Friend aware that recent cases, including "The Last Exit to Brooklyn" case, seem to indicate that the present law is totally unsatisfactory? Will he look at this again?
§ Mr. TaverneI do not think one can change the law according to one's views on how each individual case is decided. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the law was liberal in design and, on the whole, has resulted in greater freedom of publication. The design of the law is that the public, represented by a jury, should decide whether a book of a particular kind should be published, and I think that that is a satisfactory approach.
§ Mr. HoggIs the opinion of persons convicted of a criminal offence necessarily good evidence that the law ought to be changed?
§ Mr. TaverneThis is a subject on which a variety of opinions have been expressed by those who have read the book and by those who have not.
§ Mr. WhitakerDoes not my hon. and learned Friend agree that what is needed on the subject of the effect of obscenity is less emotion and more scientific fact? Would we not be greatly assisted by an expert independent commission such as the one Denmark has set up with beneficial results?
§ Mr. TaverneThe purpose of the law was to enable the public themselves to judge, through a jury, and we leave it to the public to weigh the expert evidence produced on a particular book. There is a lot of disagreement among experts about the effect of certain books on the public.
§ Mr. CarlisleWill the hon. and learned Gentleman express his gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), without whose individual action there is no doubt that this successful prosecution would never have been instituted?
§ Mr. TaverneI am not going to comment on this occasion on particular decisions on particular books by particular juries.