EXEMPTED WORKS (Hansard, 6 July 1984)

§ Mr. Graham Bright (Luton, South)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9.

§ Mr. Bright
As hon. Members will see, many amendments have been made to clause 3 in another place. Although I am moving this large groups of amendments en bloc it will be convenient if, in speaking to them, I break them down into four groups. I apologise for taking a little time on the first group of amendments but they are technical and I need to explain them to the House.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 alter the way in which the Bill deals with exemptions for medical purposes. Most medical video works will, of course, benefit from the exemption in clause 2(1). However, some bona fide medical material will fall within the scope of clause 2(2); that is why on Report I asked the House to accept amendments to add subsections (3) to (5) to the clause.
Those subsections provided an exemption for works designed for use in training for, or carrying out, the medical or related occupations specified in subsection (4) or for carrying on the occupation of a clinical psychologist, as defined in subsection (5). It became apparent, however, that there was a loophole in the new provision. Subsections (3) to (5) of clause 3 would have exempted video works designed for certain medical personnel. Such works, particularly in the case of clinical psychologists, may well be of an explicit sexual nature designed for use in treatment. of patients. The danger was that pornographers could have latched on to that.
Under the Bill as it stood, material exempted under clause 2 could of course be supplied without restriction to anyone. We are well aware of the guile and deviousness of pornographers. It was, I suggest, not unreasonable to have expected them to seize on that. After all, they would simply need to dress up a pornographic work so that it appeared to be designed for clinical psychologists and they would have been at liberty to supply recordings of that work to the public at large. There could be great difficulties for the courts; one blue movie is, I suppose, much the same as any other and it would be difficult to assess which of them had been designed for clincial psychologists and which had been designed for less worthy purposes.
That would have seriously undermined the purposes of the Bill. These two amendments are designed, therefore, to deal with videos required for bona fide medical purposes by deleting subsections (3) to (5) of clause 2 and substituting new subsections (10) and (11) in clause 3.
The proposed new subsection (10) will exempt the supply of a video recording for training for or carrying on the medical or related occupations defined in subsection 591 (11), or for the purposes of health services provided in pursuance of the main National Health Service legislation, or in training persons employed in the course of such services. In switching the exemption from clause 2 to clause 3 the opportunity has been taken to widen the definition of health personnel so that, besides doctors and nurses, it now embraces, for example, ambulancemen, whose training includes assisting women in labour, and health education officers, who may need to use material that depicts human organs.
I believe that these are sensible amendments. They close the worrying potential loophole that I described, but they also ensure that the supply of a video recording to medical personnel, as described in amendment No. 9, will be exempted.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and new subsection (12) in amendment No. 9 deal with "reverse supplies". In the form that it left this House, clause 3 was concerned essentially with supplies in one direction. For example, clause 3(4) exempts the supply of a video recording to a person who makes or supplies videos in the course of a business and clause 3(8) exempts the supply of a video to the broadcasters. But what of the persons who made these supplies? If, for example, the BBC wished to return a video submitted by an amateur producer, that would not have been an exempted supply, since the supply would not qualify under clause 3(4) or under clause 3(2), because the BBC would itself be returning it in the course of a business.
9.45 am
New subsection (12) deals with that problem by ensuring that the supply of a video recording for the purpose only of returning it to a person who had previously made an exempted supply of the recording is also an exempted supply. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make the necessary consequential changes to clause 3(4) and, I think, improve considerably the drafting of the subsection.
As regards amendments Nos. 4 to 6, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will recall that on Report he tabled an amendment designed to exempt supplies of video recordings between the various broadcasting interests. That amendment surfaced again in another place in the form of an amendment tabled in Committee by Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It was recognised that certain supplies among the broadcasters were not covered by the existing exemptions in clause 3.
Under clause 3(8) as it stood, the supply of a video recording was exempted if it was for the purpose only of the broadcasting of any work that it contained by the BBC or IBA or for its distribution by a licensed cable system. But there are supplies within the broadcasting world that are not for the purpose only of broadcasting. For example, the IBA or the BBC may require to see a video work to decide whether it is suitable for broadcasting, or perhaps after it has been broadcast; or a prospective programme maker might supply a television company with a recording either of his past work or of rough cuts of a programme that he is making. Such a supply may not be for the purpose only of broadcasting.
Of course, many of the sorts of supply that I have mentioned would be exempt under clause 3(4). Hon. Members will be aware that the ITV companies and the BBC make video works in the course of their business.
592 Thus, the supply of a video recording to an ITV company — even if it is not intended for broadcasting — is exempted under clause 3(4), provided that the tape or disc is not intended for onward supply to members of the public. Supplies to the BBC will be similarly exempted. But supplies to the IBA, which I understand does not make or supply video material in the course of business, would not be exempted under clause 3(4). Nor would supplies to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
Some helpful discussions took place with representatives of the broadcasting authorities, and as a result my noble Friend Lord Nugent move amendments on Report which get round these difficulties by widening clause 3(8) to exempt the supply of a video recording with a view only to its use for or in connection with broadcasting services provided by the BBC or the IBA or a cable service.
I am satisfied that the amendments will cover the supplies within the broadcasting world that gave rise to concern in the first place. The BBC, the IBA and the Independent Television Companies Association have been consulted about the terms of the amendments and they have welcomed them.
Amendments Nos 7 and 8 deal with supplies to the designated authority. As it left this House, clause 3(9) exempted the supply of a video recording for the purpose only of submitting a work contained in it for the issue of a classification certificate. But the British Board of Film Censors pointed out that supplies are sometimes made to it for other purposes. For example, the board may ask to see a video in order to view the version given a classification by a foreign board of classification. In some circumstances, such a supply would not have been exempted and my noble Friend Lord Nugent therefore moved amendments on Report to get round that difficulty.
I apologise to hon. Members for the fact that my explanation of the amendments has necessarily been long and rather complicated. The amendments clarify and supplement the exempted supplies provisions and represent, I believe, a considerable improvement to the Bill. They will also be of considerable benefit to those involved in the production of video recordings.

§ Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesham)
I declare an interest in the British Videogram Association. The BVA has criticised the Bill, but it welcomes its main provisions, which it has always believed to be right. It has always wanted a classification system and to ban video nasties. As the clear view of the majority in both Houses is that this is the way to go ahead, the BVA will endeavour to make the provisions in the Bill work.

§ Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)
We should be clear from the beginning. I am relieved to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) says, but can he explain why the secretary of the BVA keeps calling the Bill a dog's breakfast?

§ Mr. Brinton
I take the point. Perhaps the word "welcome" is too strong. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friends who have worked so closely on the Bill will know, the BVA was organising a voluntary system of classification, similar to that provided in the Bill, which would have been started by last September and would have been well on the way to sorting out the problems, when its plans were overtaken by events in this House.
The Bill will cause problems, and I shall deal with them later. In a spirit of reconciliation I am trying to make it 593 clear that the BVA wants to try to make the Bill work. I used the word "welcome", but if it is too strong I readily withdraw it. I hope that I have reflected accurately what the BVA now believes.
The amendments illustrate all the hesitancy with which I have approached the process. If I understand Lords amendment No. 9 correctly, a video recording supplied for use only in training in connection with any medical occupation is exempted. The second paragraph of the amendment covers the NHS, but the first stands on its own. The provision is so wide that skilful pornographers could claim that a recording was being used for genuine medical training, which need not be tied to a proper degree. I do not necessarily object to that. I am not, in spirit, a man who believes in censorship for the adult in the freedom of his own home, but that amendment and others illustrate the morass into which the Bill will lead us.
The Bill provides exemption for broadcasters when passing tapes back and forth among themselves. I am delighted that the broadcasters have welcomed that quarter loaf of bread towards solving their problems but where will it all stop? There will be a free flow of tapes in the inevitable black market which will operate as a result of the Bill. Tapes will be offered to broadcasting organisations and will therefore be exempt.
A simple notion that we must get rid of between 40 and 60 video nasties started last year and has been elaborated to cover 18R porn and all sorts of areas. That is highly dangerous. In effect, we are going back to the world and time of the Lord Chamberlain, when entertainments were investigated by an authority designated by law and pronouncements made on their suitability for the public.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)
With respect to my hon. Friend, his welcome seems somewhat cold. It might have been better if he had not said that he welcomed the Bill. At least then we would know where we stood. What my hon. Friend has just said cannot be right. He knows that under statute the board of governors of the BBC and the directors of the IBA are obliged to observe standards of taste and decency, which gives them the right to determine what should and should not be shown on their channels.
My hon. Friend also knows that for 70 years, under an Act of Parliament, the British Board of Film Censors has exercised a statutory power delegated to it by the local authorities in respect of the cinema. The arrangements which we propose exercise the same light hand of censorship on the video market which, had it existed 70 years ago, would have been dealt with then. The video business is a new development.

§ Mr. Brinton
The position is different today. The Minister says that the British Board of Film Censors is established by law. That law covers safety in cinemas; it does not enjoin the film censor to look at all films and to give them a certificate. Film censorship is done voluntarily and it works well.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the BBC and the IBA have a huge responsibility in controlling what goes out on television screens, but they are not obliged by law to preview every script or programme that goes out. It would be impossible to do that, because many programmes are live.
Under the Bill, for the first time, Parliament is saying that a body that it is setting up has a duty to preview every 594 videogram, from every source, that is sold to the public. That is the difference, and I maintain that it is a big difference. As Lord Houghton said, this is the first time in more than 100 years that censorship has been brought to bear on the individual to control what he may enjoy in his own home. Earlier, I was reflecting the BVA view in what I hope was a constructive way. I am now putting my own views and my own cautions before the House. It would be wrong not to do so.

§ Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South)
My hon. Friend rightly mentions the possibility of a black market. I should regret that, but does he agree that whenever such legislation is enacted, by the nature of life these days, someone will always seek to benefit from it and to get round the law? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a good attempt to correct something which is going wrong, and that inevitably some will seek to manipulate their way around the law?

§ Mr. Brinton
Of course I accept that. At the same time, I reflect that 12 months or 18 months ago we successfully introduced a private Member's Bill to get rid of video pirates. As the Bill bites, that legislation will become less effective because of the temptations described by my hon. Friend. We must accept the realities of life.
10 am
This is my last opportunity to express my fears and to echo those of many in the industry as well as those of certain of their Lordships. As I have said, I am not trying to destroy the Bill.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
My hon. Friend has no chance of doing that.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
Oh yes he has.

§ Mr. Brinton
I am not attempting to ascertain whether there is a chance of destroying the Bill. That is not the point. I wish to put on record the fear that the Bill has changed from what was a simple idea — it had my support and that of many others—into something more complicated. That is the problem. I shall not seek to vote against any of the amendments, because I feel that we must now enact and implement this measure. We must try to make it work smoothly and as well as possible, but I feel that I must enter my reservations.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I take up the courageous remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) with some trepidation. I agree very much with what he said. The amendments illustrate the fundamental problems that surround the Bill. The general principle underlying the Bill is easy, straightforward and natural and it is easy for us to assent to it. It is when we come to implement the general principle that we find the detailed problems that are highlighted by the amendments. For example, there are problems for those involved in health education and for the broadcasting authorities. The problems are posed by the Bill and the amendments are attempts to circumnavigate them.
The amendments must be seen in the context of the Bill, and I take up the note of dissent which has been uttered by the hon. Member for Gravesham, with which I agree strongly. I shall be brief in echoing his comments.
The Bill is being passed in a fit of inattention by the House. When Divisions have taken place, few Members 595 have voted. The Bill has been considered at times when most Members, for good reasons, have not been present and have not been able to participate in the debates.

§ Mr. Mellor
What rubbish.

§ Mr. Mitchell
It is not. The Bill has not received the sustained attention of this place.
I must utter a mea culpa. I began by strongly supporting the Bill, especially its avowed intention. I became aware of the exact repercussions of that support only at a late stage in the proceedings. We all have our interests to follow up and specialised subjects with which we are most concerned. We all have pressures on our time. That makes it all the more important that the mistakes that are made because of inattention on the part of Members like myself are followed up by a note of protest at this stage in a Bill's passage through the House.

§ Mr. Mellor
The hon. Gentleman takes a great deal upon himself by trying to excuse his own failure to realise that for eight months this extremely well-publicised Bill has been passing through the House by suggesting that those of us who have considered it have been guilty of inattention. Is he aware that more than 100 Members have voted in a number of Divisions on Fridays? The mere fact that he finds reasons not to be in the House is not a reason to attack the professional competence of his colleagues. He should withdraw his comment.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I did not assert that the Bill was being passed in a fit of inattention on the part of those present. The Minister might be aware that there are 650 Members of this place. If about 100 Members have been voting in Divisions, that reflects a degree of inattention on the part of other hon. Members. The Minister has made a clever point, but he should remember that the House has been dealing with other legislation while the Bill has been passing through the House. One example is the Finance Bill. There has been a great deal of other legislation. If the Minister thinks that Members can devote their whole attention—it is necessary to give one's full attention to the problems that will arise from the Bill's presence on the statute book — to every Bill that comes before the House, he must enjoy a superhuman intellect and activity that is not given to many. I congratulate him on possessing those qualities.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order. I have allowed the exchanges to take place, but we must not have another Second Reading debate. We must direct our attention to the amendments.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right. The Bill has not been in its present shape throughout the time that it has been before the House. It has been cobbled together, especially at the latter stages of its consideration. I have read assiduously the report of the proceedings in Committee and it is clear that fairly dramatic changes were made at the end of those proceedings. Further sensible changes and suggestions were made when the Bill was considered in another place. Those proposals were not given the attention that they merited because of the pressure on another place not to alter a private Member's Bill and open up a can of worms for this place to deal with when it came to consider their Lordships' amendments.
596 We are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are conceding excessive powers and regulations in dealing with an admittedly real and important problem from which children and, in my view, adults should be protected. The powers to deal with the problem are already adequate. Under pressure from the Home Office, the trade was moving towards a system of voluntary regulation of the kind that operates effectively in the film industry. That would have been adequate to deal with the problem. By passing the Bill, which is going through Parliament in a pattern of collusion——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the amendments, not with generalities.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The amendments illustrate the problems that will be caused by the Bill, specifically to those involved in health education. Lords amendment No. 9 places a restriction on those who can participate in the processes of health education. The exemption is not as wide as it needs to be adequately to provide for the purposes of health education. The Bill and the amendments seem to restrict the activities of broadcasting organisations.
I shall conclude my remarks by reasserting my dissent to the amendments and to the Bill itself. We are introducing censorship into the home. The amendments are a consequence of the difficulties which that introduction causes. We are forcing others—the British Board of Film Censors—to do what the House itself cannot agree to do. The amendments fail to tighten up the provisions of the Bill and leave them impossibly wide.
Under clause 2, exempted works are not to include those designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage anything falling within paragraph (a) which is human sexual activity". That is an impossibly wide definition. We are encouraging the nanny state. We are giving power to the Mrs Grundies of this society to intrude into our domestic affairs. They will be able to involve themselves in what goes on in the houses of individuals. I should not want them to censor the books in the library. I accept that we want to protect children from harm, but that should not be the basis for determining what I am allowed to see.

§ Mr. Bright
The hon. Gentleman has referred to clause 2, which deals with exemptions. We have tried to exempt as much material as possible, including material for education processes, sport, recreation, religion and the arts. The reference which the hon. Gentleman made to subjects which should not be shown are those which are exempt and need no classification. The Bill is not spelling out that they should not be featured on video recordings. They can be shown on videos, but there is a need for classification. We are not barring these things from being shown on video recordings.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, but clause 2 provides that a video work is not exempted if it is designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage human sexual activity. That seems a dangerous intrusion.
My final criticism of the Bill is that it will effectively force people into sex shops. That is the only way in which people who want to see such videos will be able to do so. Even then, they will be censored in a way that does not 597 happen in private cinemas. We have no right to impose our tastes on others. If people want to see such videos, they have a perfect right to do so. Who are we to step between them?
In this country we have a pluralistic society, which is becoming even more pluralistic, in which pluralism is based on choice. It is important that choice be maintained. We may not like the choices that people make, but we have no right to stop the choices made by adults. I support and commend the important objective of the Bill, but I do not like the consequences of widening the Bill in the way that is happening.
I am concluding, but I believe that the Minister wants to prolong my speech.

§ Mr. Mellor
If the effect of prolonging the hon. Gentleman's speech was to ensure that he knew a little more about the Bill when he sat down than when he rose, it would be for the benefit of the House. How does he think it would be possible to categorise and exclude video nasties without considering all the types of videos? Does he regard them as a self-defining category?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The Minister seeks to make a clever point, and ignores clause 2. An amendment was moved in the House of Lords to exclude human sexual activity from the scope of the Bill. That would have been a sensible amendment to accept. The violence and horror of video nasties has nothing to do with that dimension. The Bill covers a far wider area than was intended or licensed by those of us who gave our implicit support to the Bill and assumed that on the basis of that implicit support a sensible measure would be developed.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the consequences of doing what he has just suggested their Lordships should have done? Does he believe that small children or adolescents in the privacy of their homes or other people's homes should be able to witness explicit sex, group sex and unnatural sex? Is that what he is suggesting? Is that the kind of liberty that he wants to rage in the homes of this country?

§ Mr. Mitchell
Of course it is not; nor would I wish to impose the hon. Gentleman's fevered imagination on my children. Plainly, I should not want my children or other people's children to do that, but that is not part of the argument. We each control our own houses and our own children. I do not want my library or anyone else's to be censored by what is suitable for children. I maintain effective control over what my children see, and I believe that most parents do. The kind of picture which the hon. Gentleman is projecting is being used as an excuse to extend censorship to where it should not go and where it is irrelevant. It is an extension of the Bill's purpose. The Bill was to deal with video nasties—horror, brutality, criminality and all the other matters which I should not want anyone to see—me, my children or anyone else's children.
10.15 am
Under the guise of doing that, the Bill is imposing a censorship, about which I am registering a note of dissent. That note of dissent has perhaps been prolonged into a quaver by the interventions. I want to put it on record that I believe the original good intention of the Bill has been extended in a way that I find inappropriate. We may not like the choices that people make, but it is not our 598 prerogative to stop the choices made by adults in this way. I do not want such choices, particularly in sexual matters, to be restricted by what we find suitable and appropriate for children.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)
We are a little confused about whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the Bill or the debates that took place in this place in Committee and in the other place. To illustrate his knowledge of the Bill and its intentions, could he tell the House how many film titles are likely to be banned as video nasties? Could he also explain what classifications are likely to be imposed by the BBFC for those other films which will still be allowed into his home to sit upon his bookshelves, although he as a parent will know precisely what is in those films because of their classification?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a long intervention. If the hon. Member went down that road, he would be straying from the amendment.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not here to sit the amateur schools' examination posed by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I do not wish to prolong my intervention. I came to register a note of dissent, which I think it is important to register.
I have read all the Committee proceedings, the proceedings in the House of Lords and in this Chamber. They bear out what I say about the Bill being passed in a fit of inattention by the majority of hon. Members. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will concede that point. I am here to expiate my own sin of not paying the necessary attention. To do that, I am prepared to put up with all the slings and arrows Conservative Members and the Minister care to throw. I believe that it is a necessary process in a democracy to express one's dissent to what has been done in one's name — because I support the general principle of the Bill—even at this late stage.
Before I was interrupted, I was about to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). It is a sincerely meant tribute, because he has put a great deal of skill, hard work, effort and balance into the Bill, and because he has resisted the pressures to strengthen the Bin in ways which I should not like.
It would be wrong to go in for any kind of wrecking tactics, vote forcing or delaying tactics at this stage. I hope that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will. not tempt me into that. It would be wrong, because the Bill is a triumph for the hon. Member for Luton, South. I mean that most sincerely, but it is not a triumph for the House of Commons, nor for our legislative processes. Had the Bill had the attention of the House, we should have had a more narrowly defined and stricter Bill, which would have dealt more effectively with the main issue.
I am not expressing support for video nasties. I am expressing total horror. They should be banned. Children should not be allowed to see them, and I should not want adults to see them either. However, in the guise of doing that, I do not want to see the extension into other spheres which has taken place. It is not a measure which reflects any credit on our legislative processes or on the attention paid by the House. The Bill was based initially on a survey, which its authors have disclaimed, and pressure stimulated by "Grundy groups" outside the House, and it was passed by collusion between the Front Benches 599 because of the inattention of hon. Members. I hope that the implementation of the Bill will not be a blot on freedom, nor a return to Mrs. Grundy-type censorship. The Bill provides a potential for that.
These amendments do not give much meat for opposition, if one wanted to oppose them. I end, not with a bang, but with a whimper. I do not want it to be a prelude to a censorship bang in the way that it could. I felt it right and necessary to make my protest at this stage at that possible consequence.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am by nature a charitable and kindly person and I do not wish to be uncharitable and unkind to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who—whatever one might say about other hon. Members—takes his seat regularly in this place and frequently contributes usefully to our debates. But I hope that he will not mind if I say that, well intentioned though his late intervention may have been, he has demonstrated that he does not really understand the Bill or, indeed, the evil that it seeks to remedy.
When this House has enacted legislation for the protection of children, that has not meant that the overwhelming majority of parents have had to have the law forced down their throats. The overwhelming majority, like the hon. Gentleman, care about their children and try to ensure that they are protected against anything that is detrimental to their physical or moral well-being. One accepts that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's protest was wholly irrelevant to the debate.
I pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), and also to Lord Nugent in another place, for the able way in which they have steered this important measure through both Houses. It will not be beyond the bounds of propriety if I also praise the helpful attitude of the Home Office and the skill and patience of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend did not have an easy time in Committee but, whatever our views, we were all impressed by the trouble he took to meet every point of view and to remove our fears and anxieties. He showed throughout a flexibility of mind—but not of purpose—that was wholly admirable.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill—which I think has been improved somewhat in its passage through the other House — is long overdue. I agree with the amendments, although perhaps one or two opportunities to tighten the Bill have been lost. I shall mention one of them at the conclusion of my remarks. Generally speaking, however, I think that the Bill has fared well in both Houses and should now have an unopposed passage to the statute book.
There is also no doubt that the evil that the Bill sought to remedy was growing and was having a disturbing effect on an increasing number of young people — and particularly young children. It is disgraceful that, with the wonderful opportunity opening up for the trade, with the video revolution developing so rapidly, it did not grasp the opportunity to put its own house in order long before the move to self-regulation that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton). I hasten to say that I refer to a minority in the trade who were concerned with evil practices—but, of course, that was 600 always so. I was astonished by my hon. Friend's claim in his opening remarks that the trade association welcomed the Bill. What was his authority for saying that?

§ Mr. Brinton
I hesitate to remind my hon. Friend that I did, after his intervention, try to withdraw the word "welcome", which I thought was possibly too strong.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I was aware of that. I have the ears to hear. I thought it was one of the most astonishing statements made by a Member of this House at any time, Within seconds my hon. Friend withdrew his remark about warm support for the Bill, saying that he thought that perhaps he had gone too far.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
It is perhaps the kind of welcome that one gets on opening a French door.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
No doubt, but my remarks were addressed to the trade association, whose secretary has gone on record from the beginning as opposing the Bill, and who has described it as a dog's breakfast. In those circumstances, how can any hon. Member have the gall to come to this House and say that the trade has welcomed the Bill from the beginning? We should be careful of the company we keep. The fact remains——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to try hard to relate what he is saying to the amendment before the House.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think it is relevant to say in this connection that, before the trade started thinking about self-regulation, the Lord Chief Justice, the Magistrates' Association, teachers' organisations, social workers and large numbers of parents were expressing their deep concern and anxiety about what was happening. The evil of video nasties was clear, and I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that when I intervened I did not do it in an unkindly way; I thought it would help. I simply wanted to remind him that there have been cases before the courts where parents who do not share his sense of responsibility have used film videos where indulging not only in sex themselves in front of their children — [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, there was the case that I mentioned to the Committee — widely reported in the press—which also involved incest.
Unless we have legislation of this kind, which has been described as censorship, there will be some children—there is accumulating evidence that the number is increasing — at risk as a result of the money-making activities of the pornographers. I do not hesitate to speak strongly because I cannot think of anything more evil than the undermining of the physical and moral health and attitudes of mind of young children. Children are our lifeline to the future. There is the most solemm responsibility resting upon hon. Members to ensure that, whatever comes before them to approve or disapprove, they have the safeguarding of our children always in mind. The evil was there before the Bill was introduced and was amended in their Lordships' House. Indeed, there was a previous Bill. A great effort was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South to bring the matter before the——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to tell us how his remarks are related to the amendment.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I have said that I am in general support of the amendment. I was spurred on to say what 601 I have said by the remarks of other hon. Members, which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest with great humility, you allowed them to make. Since they were allowed, perhaps I may in passing make some slight reference to them.

§ Mr. Brinton
rose——

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Oh, no; not again.

§ Mr. Brinton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that it will be a useful intervention; I may well be wrong. As the huge rise in the sale and rental of video cassettes was taking place, a voluntary system was being developed, as a result of a working party set up to study the measure. It was not necessarily behind the times, as my hon. Friend suggests. May I ask him to consider whether that might not have been a simpler way to control the video nasties? Do we need this elaborate set of details, which may well prove to be a minefield when put into practice?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
The answer can be given in one word—yes. We do need the Bill. The reason is very simple. We live in a country of 55 million people, in which the amount of crime, drug-taking, alcoholic excess and anti-social behaviour of all kinds is not diminishing. All the evidence is that it is increasing. Although I do not believe that passing laws necessarily makes people better, doing so lays down a line beyond which law-abiding people will not move, and the over-stepping of which it is clear that Parliament will not approve. We are concerned here with the evil of exposing children to appalling, sadistic, sexually explicit, violent material which the trade took a long time to consider regulating for itself. The Bill is absolutely essential.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key weakness of any voluntary arrangement is the absence of the sanctions provided by legislation such as this?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I absolutely agree. If there was a free-for-all, the current heroin epidemic would spread like wildfire.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
One of the arguments for the Bill put forward in previous debates is that it would allow those entering a video shop to know which video is suitable for which purpose. For that, one would need only the voluntary code which would have developed——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We must deal with the Lords amendments before the House and stop the general debate.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make my final two points.
The question of censorship cannot be dismissed lightly. It was, after all, discussed in the House of Lords. We should not forget that there was already censorship in the film world before the Bill was thought of. The British Board of Film Censors, in its wisdom, was awarding certificates in various categories. It would give a certificate to a film which might include explicit sex, excessive violence or sadism, but, recognising that the content was not fit to be seen by young people, its showing would be restricted to persons over 18 and only in a closed, private cinema. That is censorship. The Bill did not introduce the principle of censorship. The Bill only intends 602 to ensure, as far as it is practicable, that young children and adolescents under the age of 18 will not see such material in the privacy of their homes.
The Bill is in line with the great volume of legislation which the House has felt obliged to pass in order to protect children against abuse of their health and moral well-being. That is censorship; nothing has changed in that respect. No one has the right to abuse a child in the privacy of his home. That must be made crystal clear. The Bill is overdue, and it is welcome.
However, there is one gap that I should mention, because when the Minister replies——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the gap is related to the amendment before the House.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Perhaps I could develop this point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. In all seriousness, we must follow the procedure and restrict ourselves to the amendments, in fairness to the promoters and sponsors of the Bill.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I believe that what I have to say is in order. There is a weakness in the Bill which was uncovered by Lord Mishcon in another place. It concerns the complete lack of control over the import-export trade in material of this kind.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. With great respect, that point is not related to the amendment before the House.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall set it aside. There is no such control in the Bill. There should be. Perhaps, when we review the working of the Act at some time in the future, such provision could be made. I shall watch developments with the greatest of interest.
I support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage to the statute book.

§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during my short speech I shall keep within the bounds of order.
By means of these two amendments, their Lordships have met two important points made by the Opposition spokesman in Committee. One of the amendments deals with videos meeting medical and educational needs. One could argue that the Bill as originally drafted provided the better way of dealing with this point, or that the amendment is an improvement. We urged in Committee that there should be some explicit provision—explicit is the right word to use in the case—to ensure the removal of all doubt that videos dealing with sexual activity for the purposes of health education or the use of health visitors or medical schools, for example, should be exempted. The second point was that videos provided for the purposes of broadcasting should also clearly be exempted. I welcome the amendments, which meet those two points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) graduated to the Front Bench during the debate. Perhaps that means that he is now assuming an air of greater respectability than he had a short time ago when he sat elsewhere. Incidentally, my hon. Friend complains that some hon. Members are not fully au fait with the legislation. There is nothing new about that. After 29 years in the House, I have come to the conclusion that most hon.
603 Members do not know what they are doing when they pass legislation. There is nothing unique about the present situation.
My hon. Friend has a misdirected sense of what we are doing. Clause 2 provides for specific exemptions. Sexual activity on videos is specifically excluded if it is intended for health education purposes. The Bill does not state that such videos made for other purposes will not be given a classification. Scenes will be judged by the British Board of Film Censors in the context of the video as a whole, which will be given a classification. My hon. Friend is misdirecting his efforts, because he has misunderstood the position. The exemptions having been allowed for, the heart of the Bill is not censorship but classification. As to the voluntary code that the industry says that it would have introduced if it had had more time, I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not pursue that argument too far except to say that outrageous pressure has been applied through constituents by misinformed video dealers getting people to write to us telling us that we are engaged in censorship when we are doing nothing of the sort.
Both the trade, if we accept what its spokesmen tell us, and we ourselves know that the worst and most offensive forms of video nasty will be excluded under one system or the other. For all other videos, we are merely saying that there should be classification. That must be sensible. For the worst types of videos which many people will still not allow to be shown, because I support the liberalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others, we are laying down that a special licence should be acquired. If a dealer wishes to deal in such videos, he will need a licence. That, too, is perfectly reasonable.
Much as I believe in the sanctity of the home, I do not subscribe to the view that, now that video brings cinema into the home, we are confronted by the same problem as a person having a library full of books on the subject. If both parents go out to work, because videos are so easily obtained, they cannot control what is going on in the home. That is part of the liberty of both parents going out to work. There must be some classification. That will aid parents. Those who want to show a given classification of video film, as they are entitled to do, will know that some categories of film ought to be locked safely away so that children, especially other people's children, are not exposed to them inadvertently. That is also wholly reasonable.
We are in difficult circumstances. We do not want censorship but the video industry has mushroomed overnight in a most irresponsible way. It is the duty of the House to deal with that. We are merely trying responsibly, not to impose censorship but to provide that, when people have videos in their homes, they should know what sort of videos they have, through a classification system. Many of us regretted imposing, but have come round to accept that it is reasonable to impose, the view that the British Board of Film Censors, which has great experience in these matters, should automatically be the authority to make the classifications. That is a sensible arrangement for dealing with a growing evil.
In that spirit I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for bringing the Bill in and to the Minister for his co-operative attitude in Committee. We are trying to deal with a modern social evil in the most libertarian way possible. We are not 604 imposing censorship but are producing certification. That is the sensible means by which to inform people what videos they hire. I do not think that any reasonable person can object to that or to the Bill, which is why I welcome it.

§ Mr. Mellor
I am glad, as I have often been in earlier stages of the Bill, to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who has played a considerable part in ensuring that, when the Bill reaches the statute book, it will do what we want it to do in general terms and will get the details right. I thank him, the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and many others for their constructive attitude.
I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the Bill represents the views of many hon. Members who might find it difficult to agree on other issues. Nevertheless, they came together on this Bill because of a common awareness that the problem needs to be tackled. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about fits of inattention. The Bill has received extremely careful consideration in this House and in well-attended debates. I mean well attended not by the standards of Friday but by the standards of some other debates on principal sitting days. Moreover, it has come back to us from another place, where it has received extremely detailed consideration, for which we must be grateful. We should be grateful to my noble Friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who piloted the Bill through the other place with great skill.
I should also like to express my appreciation to Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for whom I have warm admiration because of the work that he does in animal welfare. He stated his views with great skill. Some of them were not popular, but he raised several issues that led to rethinking and he is as responsible as anyone else for some of the amendments before us. My other reason for being grateful to Lord Houghton is that, when he opposed the Bill, he said so plainly. He did not dress up his argument with a veneer of agreement when he manifestly disagreed. Good plain speaking is to be commended.
10.45 am
The Bill has been considered as carefully as any private Member's Bill. It is the fruit of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), to whom I pay tribute, of the Government, the Opposition and many Members of both Houses. We have tried to ensure that there is minimum scope for abuse. We have tried to reduce the number of loopholes, consistent with the view that has been expressed thoughout that the aim of the Bill is not to turn the clock back to the age of Ealing comedy but to give people who are familiar with the categories in the mainstream cinema an opportunity to see those categories reflected on vieo cassettes on the shelves of the dealer's shop when they choose their video for themselves or their children at weekends.
The Bill gives the British Board of Film Censors the same power over videos as it has enjoyed for many years with film. That power is not merely one of saying what is or is not suitable for children. It is to say that some films are not suitable to be shown, even in age-restricted cinemas, to anyone. Many of what we call video nasties would not have got a certificate for the cinema if they had been submitted. We must ask ourselves whether, if we cannot see a film in a cinema, we should be permitted to 605 see it in the home, having regard to the fact that there is nothing so magical about one's own home, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby appeared to suggest. We are not allowed to murder our wives in our homes, we are not allowed to cause grievous bodily harm to our children and we are not allowed to kick our cats, so there is no reason why we should be allowed to see a video nasty.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the Minister will commend the amendments, or at least discuss them.

§ Mr. Mellor
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was tempted into sin by those who came before me. That shows how easily we can be adversely influenced by bad examples, which is what the Bill is all about. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has taken in good spirit the raspberry that has been blown at his speech, so far be it from me to add to his problem. Suffice it to say that when Divisions unite hon. Members with views as broadly diverse as those of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), my hon, Friend the Member for Luton, South the right hon. Member for Small Heath and me, it would be unwise to under-estimate the care that the House has applied to the Bill or the widespread desire that it should become law.
The amendments try to ensure that the exemptions work and that they cover people who are entitled to go about their business without having to submit material to the British Board of Film Censors, while not allowing a loophole for those who simply want to find another guise under which to peddle material that would not otherwise get a certificate. We have tried further to refine the concept of medical supplies so that the training of medical students and other such people is not made more difficult. We have succeeded in that. We have tried to ensure a clear distinction, which we have always wanted to maintain, between material supplied in connection with broadcasting —it is covered by its own rules which were laid down a long time ago in relation to the powers of the IBA and the governors of the BBC—and video material. Nothing in the Bill interferes with the right of broadcasters to exercise their discretion freely. If the broadcasting authorities wish to enter a wholly different market and sell their material on video, they must be bound by the rules of that market like everybody else.
We have ensured that the designated authority can go about its business with the minimum of interference from the Bill. The Bill does not seek to catch material that is being passed around in circumstances other than where there is a clear intention to supply. At that point, it is necessary for the material to be classified. As video nasties are not a self-defining category, every film must be examined. It was important to add to the Bill not just the legal power to prohibit video nasties from being freely circulated, but also the ability in the best interests of the consumer to offer him the advantage of seeing a classification with which he is familiar from the cinema.
Finally, the aim of the Bill is to regulate the whole trade. Self-regulation — estimable though the attempt was—could not work because it depended on everybody having a sense of responsibility. It was apparent that irresponsibility governed the actions of some people in the market. That is not to say that there is not a large number of people in the industry whose commitment to high standards is as great as our own. If the trade becomes regarded as a dirty business, the people who will be damaged will be those who are legitimately involved in it.

§ Mr. Anderson
Will the Minister give an undertaking that if evidence became available to the Home Office that this country was to become a major duplicating base for export, the Home Office would reconsider that matter with a view to amending the legislation?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member knows that we are debating amendments. The House should not follow that line of debate.

§ Mr. Mellor
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has taken the trouble to come here from Great Grimsby to attend this final stage of the Bill. It is important to enlighten him, just as he enlightened the House. The effect of the Bill with the amendments is not to prohibit an adult from seeing films in his own home that no sensible adult would show a child. Plenty of 18 category films will not be affected by the Bill. Whether some of the extreme 18 category films will need to be snipped because of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is not relevant to our debate. Some 18 category videos will be available for viewing in the home, and no responsible parent will let a child see them.
No attempt is being made to interfere with that, for the perfectly proper, libertarian reason that adults are entitled to live their lives as free as possible from restrictions by the state. However, there comes a point when one must recognise that some material is so extreme in its intention not, to entertain as to make attractive certain forms of violence, which may then be acted out in real life.
The same spirit led the House to introduce and maintain restrictions in the cinema. Only a few people have suggested that there should not be restrictions in the cinema. If the video trade had been invented decades ago, Parliament would not have waited until now to introduce a light hand of classification and restriction. The good faith of hon. Members who have worked hard on the Bill is shown by the fact that, instead of using public concern for state censorship and directly-appointed state censors, we have given the task to the British Board of Film Censors. It has done a similar job for 70 years. We believe that it is respected. That shows that we do not want to seize upon a public concern and exploit it. The public want censorship, and we must draw a fine line. I hope that, as a result of accepting the amendments, we can draw that line with even more precision in the right place. I commend the amendments to the House.