OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 25 March 1969)

§ Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to obscene publications. In view of the debate to follow, I propose to confine my remarks to as short a time as possible. The procedure under which I seek permission to introduce this Bill is called the Ten Minute Rule procedure. That is taken to mean in some cases speaking for 10 minutes and in some cases for a few more minutes, but one is expected to present in a very short speech reasons why one is seeking to introduce a Bill. That is what I propose to do in as brief a speech as possible.

The first reason why I seek to introduce this Bill is because of the confusion in which the law now stands in relation to obscene publications. As hon. and right hon. Members know, there is a wide circulation of what I can only describe as literary and scenic rubbish in various bookshops in the West End of London and elsewhere. One thinks of a book, for example called "The Carpet Baggers", which sells by hundreds of thousands. One can only describe it as being written to a formula of violence and sex with the object of selling as many copies as possible, but one knows well that within the present law this is possible. Its sequel, "The Adventurers", is written to the same formula. One thinks of the James Bond books, which have sold in millions, written to a similar formula, although 1292 in different dimensions relating to sadism and sex.

I am not concerned with that particular rubbish but with whether the law is in difficulty over serious works of literature. One can think of books sold in what I describe euphemistically as the Soho dirty bookshops which manage to survive the law perfectly well. The proprietors seem to make quite a reasonable living, and I believe this is a very profitable industry; but this is within the law. These bookshops persist and sell their wares without much difficulty. They sell books as well as pictures which I can only describe as posed and phony pictures which have no relation to any artistic standards and no art or principle in them. These bookshops flourish and import expensive magazines from abroad, apparently without let or hindrance, but serious articles are persecuted and prosecuted. I think they are prosecuted because they dare to stand up for themselves.

I think, for example, of the novel which was prosecuted last year, "Last Exit to Brooklyn", which I regard as a novel of serious social criticism rather in the same mood as a novel which hon. and right hon. Members will remember appeared in the thirties, "Love on the Dole". It might not have been a pretty book to read, and it was not perhaps a book one would read so much for pleasure as for information and comment. That of course was in a different social context, but I regard this sort of book, although not pleasant, as a book which ought to be published, which should be published, which describes what is beastly and violent in society, but what in fact exists in society.

It would be a terrible thing if authors were unable at times to lift the stones of our society to see the ugliness and squalor underneath them. It is the serious artist who is inhibited by the present law. I think of a photographer such as Jean Straker who has been more or less driven out of the business of photography by the present law, a serious artist and photographer. If he were the purveyor of trash such as I have described, his work would sell in thousands and he would make a lot of money, but because he is a serious artist and insists on artistic standards of his craft, he is persecuted by the present law.

1293 Taste, of course, is subjective, as one saw in the recent trial of writers in the Soviet Union. The main purpose of the excellent programme done on that trial by the B.B.C. some months ago was to indicate, and the main defence of the artists was, that it is impossible in law and by law to lay down artistic standards. This is where the present law is in a state of complete confusion, because it is trying to lay down by Statute and by obiter dicta from judges and magistrates artistic matters of taste in literature and art which are not capable of being reduced to any kind of legislative formula?

Literacy and artistic tastes are matters of individual judgment that cannot be laid down in a Statute or determined by law; and it is not fair to police or magistrates to expect them to adjudicate on these works. We cannot run seminars in literature or abnormal psychology for our magistrates and judges, and obviously we do not intend to try. I suggest, therefore, that it would be in the interests of our society if we were able to introduce legislation to amend the law so as to remove from the province of judges and magistrates this unequal task with which we have presented them of trying to judge literature.