ANNUAL REPORT

HC Deb 16 March 1984 vol 56 cc622-6

' (1) The designated authority shall, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so after 31st December, make a report to the Secretary of State on the carrying out in the year ending with that date of the arrangements referred to in section 4(1) and (3) of this Act and on such other matters (if any) as the designated authority consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may require.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report made to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Bright.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bright

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause also is moved in response to requests made in Committee. I could have moved it formally, rather than making a speech, but some latitude was given to hon. Members when speaking to new clause 1.

I do not intend to thank hon. Members now, because I hope to be able to do so later, but I thank them for what they have said about me. I am very grateful for the support and encouragement that I have had. The new clause ensures that the designated authority produces an annual report on its activities. It answers the point made in Committee in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), although he kindly withdrew his amendment. I assured him then that I would table an amendment on Report. This is it, and I commend it to the House.

Sir Bernard Braine

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has explained the reason for the new clause, I will be brief. I am grateful to him for honouring an undertaking that he gave in Standing Committee. However, one additional point might be made in support of the amendment which I think is relevant.

One of the arguments used against the Bill outside the House, as my hon. Friend will know, is that, although its motivation may be unimpeachable, it is in effect a form of censorship on what is allowed to be seen in the privacy of a citizen's home. This point must be met head-on. It is, of course, nothing of the kind.

Nobody has a prescriptive right under the law physically to maltreat, terrorise, starve or neglest a child. If the authorities have reason to believe that this is happening—and of course it does happen—they descend upon the home, investigate and, if necessary, take the child into care. Sometimes the investigation, as some hon. Members know only too well, arrives too late to save the child.

All we are saying in this Bill is that no child should be exposed to the risks of an assault upon his mind by the horrific, filthy and damaging video material that is currently circulating, and which teachers throughout the country report that their pupils, even of 10 years of age, and sometimes younger, are watching. What is more, under the existing law, the British Board of Film Censors already certifies such material as suitable for showing only to persons over 18 in licensed sex cinemas. That is the present practice, and it is, of course, a safeguard for young persons.

We are only at the beginning of what I am sure will prove to be an exciting video revolution. Handled responsibly, it will entertain and brighten people's lives; it will educate them too, but it can have, and it is having now, serious adverse effects. With the advent of cable and satellite television, we need to monitor the impact of this technology on our society.

The requirement that the designated authority present an annual report — the point was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his excellent speech earlier in the debate—which must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, provides an opportunity which does not exist at present for Parliament and the public to discuss developments and trends with knowledge and understanding. That must be good. One cannot talk, therefore, of censorship, or of restricting personal liberty, where a freely elected Paliament takes unto itself the right to scrutinise, to express a view and to act.

I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Parris

Although I am almost disarmed by the kind remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister has made, I must warn the House against a somewhat unsavoury note of self-congratulation that is beginning to creep in at this very early stage of Report. This is a pretty ropey piece of legislation. It is a bit of a parliamentary cop-out. It is a short Bill which simply gives all the power to make all the decisions that we think need to be made by a quango, accountable to a quango. Nobody who thinks about it is very happy with that.

Most of us have been just about persuaded, by the diplomacy and evident good faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), that this is the only way of doing things. However, there is a feeling of unhappiness about the extent to which Parliament henceforth disclaims responsibility for this important area of state censorship. The new clause takes one small step in the direction back to parliamentary accountability, and it is, for that reason, welcome

10.45 am

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I support what my two hon. Friends have said about the Bill, and the new clause. I should like to emphasise the need for the new clause by underlining some of the things that are happening, which I know of from my own experience, and from the observations of no less a person than Miss Sigley, who is a producer of children's programmes for Thames Television. She has produced children's programmes in the United States for 10 years, and really knows her subject. She and I, and others, have been into schools to talk to children, and to see what they watch on television and how they respond to children's programmes. I have discovered that children rarely watch programmes early in the evening at the time at which children's programmes are transmitted. Children are more likely to watch something at 7.30 or 8 or 9 o'clock or even later, and they therefore turn for their entertainment to videos. The children who are watching are under 10 years of age. Their ages go down to seven and even six years of age.

I confirm from my own research and observation that the first thing that people with redundancy money buy is a video. Videos are a priority in the homes of probably as many as 60 per cent. of the working population of the country. They are often a higher priority in the homes of people who are not particularly articulate, and who do not read books or listen to music very much. In some homes, videos even take priority over food and furniture. That is the situation with which we are dealing. From my conversations with children in this situation, it is clear that many parents take no interest in what their children are watching. That therefore places an extra responsibility upon the House, and we must disharge that responsibility. Parents tend to go upstairs where they have a separate television of their own, retiring from where the children are. The children are then left with the video to put on what programmes they like, and they stay there, either until they decide to switch off and go to bed, or until they fall asleep, and sometimes they are still there the following morning. The situation is therefore very serious.

I am not sure that the House is being strong enough about this matter, particularly in the light of what I am saying. The fact that children can obtain from one another, and from other sources, what material they like to put on the video, entirely unobserved by their parents, is a serious matter, as is the fact that some parents would even observe their children, allow them to do this, and not be concerned if they put on depravity and some of the terrible videos about which we all know. Is it not appallingly serious that families are prepared to go without the necessities of life, like furniture, and sometimes even to restrict their diet, in order to have videos?

The House must take a strong line on this matter, and new clause 2 is the minimum that we can do. I welcome it on those grounds, but I put down a marker that I should like to see something tougher.

Mr. Lawrence

Much as I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), I am afraid that I cannot agree with him that the legislation is either a parliamentary cop-out, or a particularly ropey Bill. I do not believe that that view will be shared by the overwhelming majority of people in the country — particularly parents who are concerned that, if the evil to which the Bill is directed is left to go unchecked, it could in time seriously undermine the fabric of our society. The matter is as serious as that. The contribution which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has made is, therefore, a considerable one, as are the contributions that all members of the Committee have made.

My concern is to follow up the point that I have made, obviously inadequately, on two previous occasions. I hope that the annual report will contain some reference to the prices that are being charged as a result of the extra costs that are inflicted upon the British Board of Film Censors, so that people know that the purchase of 18R videos is an expensive business. Sometimes, the purse is as good a form of censorship as any other control—if not better. Those who wish to indulge in the purchase of such material, and those who wish to indulge in its manufacture and distribution, should have to pay a high price for doing so.

If that is a feature of the annual report, the public may be more greatly reassured about the useful effects of this legislation than if, without it, the Bill had passed through its stages, modified to some extent and subject to a large number of qualifications.

I ask the Minister to give the assurance that he will require the costings to be shown in the annual report.

Mr. Simon Hughes

As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, we are taking a further step in the censorship of what people do in their homes. It is, therefore, right that we should be careful to pay attention to what is done on our behalf by the BBFC.

The board could take two courses. It could become progressively more liberal and permissive, with the result that we would all become increasingly concerned about the effects of videos, or it could become progressively less permissive and more restrictive and begin to censor something that is certainly not obscene under the present obscenity law. That censorship would provide a second tier of check — a certificition procedure that prevents certain videos from being shown in the home. For that reason, every possible means of checking and monitoring the work of the board must be taken.

When we debated new clause 1, the Minister responded to the concern expressed that there should be as much accountability as possible. I hope that I made it clear that I believe that that is best done through local authority representation. There must be an opportunity for the House annually to debate the way in which the BBFC is operating, how it controls videos and how it decides what is suitable viewing in the home.

We should agree to the new clause as a sign of our concern not to allow anybody to become over-censorious and that we intend to be especially careful that a report is made. We must not find that the civil liberties on which we pride ourselves are being eroded. Of course, we do not want youngsters to be harmed by the worst form of video nasties, but we must be the guardian of the liberties of our fellow citizens.

For that reason, the regular opportunity to debate the report of the BBFC should be welcomed. The new clause improves the Bill.

Mr. Mellor

I know that the House will want to make progress, so I shall be brief. The annual report is intended as a way in which the BBFC can, through the Secretary of State, give an account of its stewardship. I hope that it will deal with all possible aspects of the board's activities.

Obviously, tariffs are an important matter. Discussions are not yet finalised, and I shall bear in mind the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

I can only tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) that I feel like a vet who, having stroked an alsatian, has his hand bitten off. Perhaps if I had said that my hon. Friend's contribution to the Committee had added a new dimension to the concept of turgidity, he might have said that it was a wonderful Bill. But had I done so, and had he so responded, he would have been more accurate than I.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.