HC Deb 09 November 1972 vol 845 cc1180-3
24. Sir D. Walker-Smith

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the passage of time and change of circumstances since the review of the law of obscenity prior to the passage of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, he will now recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the said law and make proposals for its appropriate amendment.

25. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the report by Lord Longford and his committee, a copy of which is in his possession, he will re-define the meaning of obscenity in relation to literature, as expressed in the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, so as to require sellers and publishers, in cases where their output is alleged to be obscene, to prove that it is not.

Mr. R. Carr

The question of reforming the law on obscenity has been pretty fully traversed in recent years and I understand that the main purpose of the Longford Report is to provoke discussion on this and related matters. I doubt whether there is much further light which a Royal Commission could throw on the relevant considerations. My present view is to doubt whether there is anything to be gained by amending the definition of obscenity.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the complexities and social importance of this question require something more than an unofficial body, however well intentioned? Will he give further consideration to seeking a full objective and authoritative review by an officially appointed body?

Mr. Carr

Yes, of course I will consider it further. But I feel that there have been a good many official and unofficial inquiries into the subject by well-qualified people, including lawyers from all parties. But I will consider it further, because it is important.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Obscene Publications Act appears to put the onus on the ordinary person to prove that he has been depraved, whereas what the general public is most concerned about is not the question of depravity and corruption but simply the affront to generally accepted standards of public decency?

Mr. Carr

I am sure that my hon. Friend is reporting correctly, and, if anything, understating the amount of public concern on this matter, but I am doubtful about shifting the onus of proof. I believe that the whole question of display should be looked at. I believe that that is the most hopeful front to attack, and that is what I am considering very carefully.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recently published "rag" magazine of Newcastle University students has received considerable publicity, in which it has been described as "filthy", "depraved" "obscene", "disgusting", and so on? Is he further aware that the evidence is that the sales of the magazine will this year be very much higher than last year? Will he therefore resist the temptation to titillate tonsils in this respect?

Mr. Carr

I am afraid that I have not been sent this journal, so I have not been able to look at it or consider it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman may be able to put that right. But, seriously, I believe that the sort of display which is to be seen is causing considerable offence, and that that is what we should look into very carefully.

Sir D. Renton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not really a question of shifting he onus of proof but of redefining the offence in a way which deals with the mischief which causes public anxiety? Will he apply his mind to that proposition?

Mr. Carr

I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that I will do so. But I must repeat that my predecessors and many others have applied their minds to this problem and have found it an extremely difficult subject. Any new definitions or changes seem to create as many new difficulties as they solve old ones.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

I think most of us on this side of the House would agree that the right hon. Gentleman is right not to try to alter the Obscene Publications Act. I wonder whether the best way to tackle this, as he suggests, might not be in terms of laws protecting privacy. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned display, but another feature that is highly offensive to many people is the receipt of unsolicited material through the post, with the possibility that their children or their elderly parents may pick it up. It seems more fruitful to us to tackle this by protecting privacy or by controlling display rather than by reintroducing censorship.

Mr. Carr

I shall take into account what the hon. Lady has said. An Act was passed in the last year or two which deals at least partially—I am not sure whether it deals fully—with the receipt of unsolicited material through the post. But this is a serious matter and it needs looking into further.