Pornographic Telephone Services

HC Deb 14 December 1992 vol 216 cc117-32 9.57 pm

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)

I make no apology for returning to the subject of telephone premium-rate services. As hon. Members will recall, for seven years I have campaigned—along with others—to clean up what have now been dubbed sex lines or pornographic telephone services.

I have achieved one or two successes. The original group chat lines—which led young people to run up enormous bills for their parents to pay—have been discontinued. Following a tortuous process lasting a couple of years, the Independent Committee for the supervision of the Standards of Telephone Services—the supervisory body—came round to the view that there was something unwholesome about chat lines, and introduced a compensation scheme which had the long-term effect of pricing them out of the market. There was, however, no moral thrust in the attitude to the changes of either the committee or Ministers.

Another positive development is the availability of an opt-out, enabling subscribers to go on to digital exchanges. I believe that such exchanges now cover some 70 per cent. of the telephone network, and that by 1994 they will cover 100 per cent. That is fine, but it still does not go as far as I would wish. As I said as long ago as 1986, I think that we should move to an opt-in arrangement in respect of the services—including what I would regard as respectable, if costly, services.

The other recent positive move has been number separation, on which my view is somewhat ambivalent. I do not think that pornographic lines should exist in the first place, but if no one is moral enough to do anything about them, and if they are to remain, I accept that the separation of their numbers from those of the more respectable services to which I have referred is a positive move.

In spite of all that, these corrupting services have survived—indeed, because of the gap in the market, their number has increased in some parts of the country. I refer specifically to what are known as one-to-one services, by which young women—typically, and sadly, in our poorer areas—are engaged to do what they call "talking dirty" to a wide variety of sexual deviants and inadequate males who, phone in, all times of the night. That is one of the most corrupting aspects of the services, and I shall refer to it at greater length later in my speech.

What finally persuaded me to use my slot in the Consolidated Fund debate to raise this issue after so many years and after so many words uttered in the Chamber, were the recent events in Hillingdon, where a 17-year-old girl was raped. Those events reinforce my gut feeling about the whole business of pornographic telephone services. I hasten to add that I can produce no scientific or academic evidence to suggest a correlation between the growth in the services and the increase in crimes against women. It is a feeling that I have. If we in this place are about anything, we are about the feelings—things that we cannot touch, hold or prove, statistically or otherwise—that we get when we deal with people. I have such a feeling about these telephone services.

The lawyers among us would say, "Mr. Lewis has it wrong. Nothing was proved in the court case that followed the rape." What happened was that defence counsel— presumably seeking in some way to mitigate the problem that his client faced—told the court that his client had spent more than four hours on a chatline before committing the crime. That seems to me to point us firmly in the direction of the conclusion for which I have argued for some considerable time.

If defence counsel was correct, the Government and their creature, ICSTIS, stand condemned, and I am fortified in my belief that there is a correlation between crime and chatlines. It is time that Ministers took that correlation on board and commissioned the study that I believe is needed. That study, perhaps under the aegis of the Home Office, not the Department of Trade and Industry, could undertake academic work into the whole business and perhaps prove or disprove any of my theories, however important they might be for Ministers.

Looking through my files over the weekend before preparing my speech, I noted that, over the time to which I have referred, I have dealt directly with 27 Ministers of the present Government. There have always been good reasons—commercial, moral and others—why nothing could be done, and nothing has been done save to rely upon the Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. The Government are in favour of self-regulation. Ministers believe in self-regulation throughout the range of our activities, but the time has come when something different has to be done. I hope that, by the time I reach the end of my speech, I will have proved that self-regulation certainly has not helped much in this case.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I have been in contact with British Telecom and ICSTIS on this issue. I was told that, in this country, although we have the technology to bar certain numbers, some people are getting around the rules by phoning the Dutch Antibes and thereby, totally out of the scope of this country, gaining access to such "services".

Does the hon. Gentleman think that action should be taken in respect of subsidiarity? We might be flouting European directives by using technology to bar those numbers. The laws of the European Community are far more liberal than in this country.

Mr. Lewis

The hon. Gentleman takes me into waters that I do not necessarily want to swim in at this stage. Call barring is effective, and it can be requested if one is on a digital exchange. Before we talk about the services that one can key into on the continent, we have to put our own house in order. I do not think that our house has been in order in any moral terms in the past seven years. We must put that right. Other hon. Members might want to go further and talk about the continental television programmes that can now be tuned into. It must be said that some are dubious. Indeed, it is now easy to transmit pornography on video screens. That is a whole new ball game. I should like to persuade Ministers to reconsider the arguments that I have been putting forward for, as I have repeated once or twice, seven long years.

I do not believe that self- regulation has worked. The problems that the hon. Gentleman and others have been drawing to our attention for some time reinforce that point. Also, some people tend to be blasé about the matter. They do not consider that it is as important as the problems of whole industries. That point was highlighted in a recent parliamentary answer to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

I asked what was happening about telephone information services, and I was told: The independent committee for the standards of telephone information services—ICSTIS—is an effective regulator of the premium rate telephone service industry. The ICSTIS code is kept continuously under review and it was further strengthened this year. Therefore, we believe adult premium rate telephone services are strictly controlled."—[Official Report, 2 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 251.] That stretches credulity too far.

I know that you will frown upon me, Madam Speaker, if I use props, but I seek your indulgence for 30 seconds while I hold aloft a Sunday newspaper which offers thousands of adverts, page after page after page that leave nothing to be desired. I would not read out the worst titles because of your sensibilities, Madam Speaker, but there are one or two that I may just about get away with—for instant, "Instant arousal and quick relief"; or "Quickest instant relief"; or the very naughty one, "Try my knickers on."

They are not the worst, but they appear in a national newspaper that can be bought off the shelf alongside The Independent on Sunday, the Sunday People, the Sunday Mirror or The Sunday Times. If that does not represent ineffective control by ICSTIS, I do not know what does. I certainly do not accept the answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Technology a few weeks ago.

I regret that ICSTIS appears, when challenged by hon. Members and by the public, to make excuses and to be an apologist for the telephone systems. It is also inadequate, physically, to do the job of monitoring when one considers the thousands of adverts that appear. It is funded to the tune of about £1.3 million a year, it has a staff of about 25, but it is supposed to deal with thousands and thousands of numbers and 350 operators. How can that organisation supervise and deal adequately with an industry that is worth £200 million?

What is ICSTIS about? Who funds it? It is funded by British Telecom, Racal-Vodac and Mercury—to Mercury's credit, it has backed out of all those pornographic services. BT tells us that it cannot, but Mercury has.

It is worth remembering what the chairman of ICSTIS said in the Mail on Sunday on 25 February 1990: I couldn't care a hoot. Why shouldn't people engage in private conversations about pornography? He said much the same thing last weekend on BBC Radio Leeds, when I challenged him on a down-the-line interview. The reason that there is no control, that the chairman of ICSTIS is an apologist for the services and why we need to address the problem rather than that voluntary organisation is that the systems are growing. The one-to-one services to which I have referred employ women in our poorer areas who daily verbally prostitute themselves on the altar of profit. The users, who abuse those women, are sexually inadequate men, typically, who use that service all hours of the day and night.

Another reason why the chairman of ICSTIS and his committee are wrong and should be doing something more positive is that section 43(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 specifically forbids talk that debases and demeans. That law is being broken every minute, hour and day of the week, yet the chairman of the supervisory body says that he does not give a hoot, and that he will supervise as best he can. I do not think that is acceptable. It should not be acceptable to the House, even if it is acceptable to Ministers.

Throughout the long period during which the campaign has been running, there has been little support from the Government. I regret that, just before the election, the Competition and Services (Utilities) Bill was allowed to pass through the House without tackling the abuses that I have described. I regret that hon. Members who told me, "We support you; it is right; we should not have these services," were in the wrong Lobby when the vote took place. I moved amendments in Committee that would have rendered tonight's debate unnecessary.

I regret that Ministers have failed to respond to the many organisations that have campaigned on the issue. I shall name a few. It is a terrible pity that the Minister is preoccupied at the moment, because one or two are near to home: Care Concern, the Conservative Party Family Association, the Salvation Army, Portsmouth Family Concern and Tatton Christian Concern, which is in the Minister's own constituency.

There have been times when I have thought that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have been less than energetic in their support of the campaign, but at least our manifesto at the last election contained a commitment that we would properly tackle and control these services.

I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's speech, but he will probably repeat that Ministers have confidence in ICSTIS. Their confidence is misplaced. I have mentioned the newspaper adverts and have accurately described how the business is growing in a way that the House should be ashamed of.

Evidence has been given to ICSTIS and a previous Home Secretary by insiders—women who have worked on the one-to-ones and journalists who have taken jobs in order to gather stories. A little over 18 months ago, a journalist infiltrated a one-to-one chatline company in Manchester. His evidence was presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, ICSTIS and Oftel, but little was done to control the organisation. It was closed down for a short time, but then the principals moved somewhere else and continued to make their grubby money doing much the same thing in another part of town.

It is interesting to consider one or two extracts from the 13-page report. I shall read out four of them which I think hon. Ladies would be horrified to read, but I have cleaned up the quotations for the purposes of my speech.

The journalist said that, for the first shift, she reported to a supervisor, who handed her a notice which was given to all chatline operators. She was shown into a room of perhaps 26 young women around a wooden rail into which the telephones were plugged. She wrote: The first impression—how grubby, how filthy—what a hell hole—phones ringing everywhere. 'Pick'em up girls' is being shouted by a lady. In a funny way, it looks like a rundown schoolroom, with a bench full of pen scribbles and graffiti going around the room—dirty cups, overflowing ashtrays, milk, tea, papers. The walls are covered with what was a light blue carpet now veneered in heavy nicotine stain. Black stone grubby floor. Very seedy and mucky. That is the description of the place in which the women were working.

She continued: The girl I sit next to says, 'Now we don't have any sex talk, drugs, foul language talk or anything racialist, tell them you can't put up with it.' That was the total sum of my training. The latest code of practice to which the Minister will probably refer demands a grand total of four hours training, but that was all the training that the journalist received.

When she finally had to engage in the talk-dirty conversations, she queried with one supervisor why she had been given her previous instruction. The answer was that they had to be careful with newcomers because they might be journalists who had come to do a story.

The following extract is short. After she had taken about 30 calls in approximately six hours, she wrote: My mouth is permanently dry and I get a terrible stomach ache. By the end of the night, I feel that all my hair is being pulled out. She goes to the toilet but that is filthy too, with no loo seat, cream walls splashed with brown and written on I have scored out the dirty words. She continues: 'Today I hate phone perverts' has been scrawled on the wall. There is no soap or towel, paper and fag ends everywhere. A dog … howls outside. We are locked in … More explicit sex you couldn't wish to hear. I feel mentally screwed, talking dirty for men's pleasure … It can't be right.! This is from a hard-bitten journalist who has probably seen everything.

The final extract, written after four shifts, reads: I can't take any more … and as I leave at 9 o'clock I wonder if there is a normal world outside this seedy debauched hellhole. I thought I was fairly worldly wise, but after four nights at the company, I realise I know nothing about the perversions of sick men of all ages and walks of life. Will I ever be able to walk into a supermarket again, and look at those men doing their weekly shop without wondering if they were one of my callers? That was written by a hard-bitten journalist of mature years who has seen almost everything. As the extracts prove, even she was completely shocked by what she had to endure.

Let us consider the effect if she had been a woman—as most of them are—of less mature years, in economic difficulties, probably on the dole, probably a single parent and doing the work merely for money for her family. What I have read out is typical of the experience of women who work in such services and the places from where they are delivered.

It is a sad reflection on the moral standing of the Government that the services have so prospered since privatisation. It is doubly sad that many of the 27 Ministers about whom I have already spoken have teenage daughters. The Prime Minister has a teenage daughter. The Leader of the House, whom I tackled a week or two ago on the issue, has two teenage daughters. When Ministers next see those daughters, I want them to think of those young women, and especially of the Hillingdon girl to whom I referred. I want the worthy citizens who have been appointed to ICSTIS to think about those young women. More than anything, I want the Government, starting with the Minister tonight, to shoulder their responsibilities and to do something once and for all against these services.

10.25 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton)

I have listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), whom I have heard speaking on this topic before. He addressed a meeting in my constituency on the same subject, with my full welcome. I understand the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members in the House and elsewhere for some time.

The Government agree that adult premium rate services need to be regulated. Despite the claims by the hon. Member for Worsley, I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the House that a system of regulation is in place which effectively controls adult premium rate services.

The issues raised by adult premium rate services come into two broad categories: first, the content of the message services; and, secondly, their accessibility. With regard to content, we have already made provision in the Telecommunications Act 1984 for dealing with the danger of obscenity over the telephone network. Section 43 states that it is a criminal offence to send by means of public telecommunications system messages that are

grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". That law is reflected in the contracts that British Telecom has with the providers of premium rate services. These require the companies to operate within the code of practice drawn up by the Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. Articles 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the code lay down that the services must not involve the use of foul language or debase, degrade or demean or cause grave offence by reason of their sexual, sadistic, violent or repulsive content. If service providers breach the code of practice and therefore break their contract, they can be cut off. I shall explain in detail later how the controls are implemented and the roles of Oftel and ICSTIS.

For the moment, I emphasise that, as a result of the implementation of the controls, the content of adult premium rate services is, by generally accepted standards, fairly mild. It is certainly milder than that accepted in other media. The messages may be distasteful or banal, or in some instances laughable. We may be amazed that people are willing to spend so much money on them, but where no laws are being broken, it is not the inclination of the Government to tell people what they can or cannot spend their money on.

Mr. Lewis

The Minister spoke about people spending their money on these services. I think that he will agree that the bulk of the money is spent by people who use somebody else's telephone. If he were to listen to some of the wider range of services over a weekend, he would find that the callers are mostly security men working in other people's factories.

Mr. Hamilton

I know that the House authorities have already made it impossible for hon. Members to make use of the services from their telephones. I do not know what proportion was accounted for by telephone calls at the taxpayer's expense from here, but we have at least plugged that loophole.

The hon. Member for Worsley referred to a link between sexual crimes and pornography, and to a recent case in which a rapist was discovered to have made much use of adult telephone services. When we hear of sexual crime in which the perpetrator has been a user of pornographic materials, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the materials in some way contributed to the crime.

The question of a link between pornography and sexual crime has been extensively researched. Certainly, in the case of soft pornography, no evidence has been found that there is a causative link. A more plausible explanation is that those likely to commit sexual crimes will find their excitement in one way or another and banning any particular form of pornography, or even all pornography, will make no difference. Clearly, the issue extends far beyond the availability of premium rate services to the general question of the balance between the freedom of expression and the avoidance of obscenity.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

Is it not a fact that, although research in this country showed no direct link, a great volume of research elsewhere does show a direct link? Is it not also a fact that, whenever the police visit the homes of those suspected of or caught molesting children or raping women, they almost invariably find a collection of pornographic material? The great majority of people believe that pornographic material feeds perverts. The Government should tighten the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to remove some of the more obscene examples of pornographic material.

Mr. Hamilton

I fully accept that the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend is widely shared. In these chicken and egg cases, it is always difficult to know where the causative link lies or the direction in which it flows—if a causative link can flow.

I fully admit that there is room for argument. However, questions about obscene publications have traditionally been matters that the House has considered as conscience issues and the Government have not sought to impose their will on the House more generally. However, I fully accept that there is great concern about the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said, and there is certainly more than a small amount of room for arguing that a causative link can be found.

On behalf of the Government, all I can say is that, as it cannot be proved with the certainty that we think appropriate for legislation to be further tightened, more research needs to be carried out, especially as we will be legislating for this country and not for other countries.

The other broad area of concern with adult premium rate services is their accessibility, a point made by the hon. Member for Worsley in his intervention a moment ago. Perhaps the most worrying aspect is not their content per se, but the ease of access to the services for non-adults.

The vast majority of households have telephones. While parents can usually exercise control over their children's television watching beyond the 9 pm watershed, and there are point-of-sale controls over the purchase of published material by minors, it is more difficult to control access to the telephone.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)

Given the difficulties with such controls, why has the Minister not listened to the submission made by the Director General of Telecommunications in 1989 suggesting that premium rate telephone calls and phone lines should be subject to an opt-in principle? That would make control easy and would overcome the Minister's difficulties.

Mr. Hamilton

Every effort is made to advise customers of opting-out facilities, and BT sends out leaflets with its bills. The opting-out facility is provided free. It could hardly be easier to arrange opting out. In the circumstances, we believe that the law as it stands and the code of practice under it are sufficient for the time being.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

If I recall correctly, have not the Government proposed certain changed in legislation governing trade union contributions to the Labour party, stating that there should be an opt-in? Why should there not be a similar opting in for telephone customers? The trade is disgusting and nothing that the Minister says will convince me otherwise.

Mr. Hamilton

I do not seek to equate the two activities in relation to the degree of public esteem or probity and I accept the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

Are the Government concerned about the number of crimes committed against women and children? Are they concerned that pornography in all its forms is much more accessible today? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a responsibility to protect women and children and do something about the filthy material which is so readily available and on which a great and expensive industry is based? Will he join me in deploring newspapers that print advertisements of the sort to which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) referred?

Mr. Hamilton

I know what a doughty fighter my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, a neighbour of mine, has been for decency during the years that she has been a Member. I applaud her fight. I have much in common with what my hon. Friend has advocated for many years.

It is true that society has changed—in many respects, for the worse—and that includes its social morality. We must accept that not everyone agrees with our view of the world. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that soft pornography is much more freely available today than it was, certainly when I was at school in the 1960s. No one could view with equanimity the decline in standards which has taken place in society generally since that time and, indeed, since much earlier.

That brings me back to the question of the causative link between such publications and sexual crime. I deplore, as do the Government, offences against women and children which are especially revolting and which all sane and decent-thinking people will deplore as strongly as they possibly can. However, we must accept that times change, and society looks at publications today in a somewhat different way from the way in which it did 20 or 30 years ago. That is not to say that I condone or agree with that approach, but the Government are limited by what is generally acceptable in society. We have strongly taken the view that hard pornography and other forms of pornography should not be freely or legally imported into this country, even after the single market comes into effect on 1 January.

We take seriously the enforcement of the law tht exists at present. The question whether we should toughen the law in terms of the definition of obscenity or other matters arising out of the Obscene Publications Act takes us beyond the scope of this debate, which is about one particular form of activity that my hon. Friend and others find distasteful.

Mrs. Winterton

I should like briefly to correct my hon. Friend on one point, although it is outside the brief of this debate. It is legal to import into the United Kingdom hard pornography via satellite television. It is illegal for people in their own homes, who receive such pornography, to record it and use it again, but it is legal to import it. That is due to an agreement which was made within the European Community when one of our Ministers at some stage signed something, not understanding precisely the impact that it would have.

Mr. Hamilton

I cannot accept that one of my colleagues failed to understand what he was doing when negotiating in the European Community. I always avoid the difficulty by saying no whenever I go to the Council of Ministers, so I never get into such scrapes.

I assumed that my hon. Friend was talking about publications, magazines, videos and so on. I stand corrected if my hon. Friend is right about satellite broadcasts. Undoubtedly, we will return to that matter on another occasion.

I revert to my speech. The other broad cause of anxiety, to which I referred earlier, is the accessibility of adult premium rate services, which the hon. Member for Worsley mentioned. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of such services is the ease with which non-adults can acquire access to the service. I agree that it is more difficult to control access to the telephone than to other services. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have made some significant advances in recent months and years in controlling access.

Another problem of access applies not only to adult services but to all premium rate services. Someone other than the telephone account holder may run up large bills using the services without the knowledge of the account holder. However, technology is bringing the means to solve the problems. Call barring is now available to some 60 per cent. of BT customers. That makes it possible to bar calls from a line to particular numbers or classes of numbers. That simply means that if those numbers are called from the line, no connection is made.

As the modernisation of the BT network continues, the availability of call barring will increase. It should be available to virtually all BT customers by the end of 1996. BT recently mounted a campaign to bring the facility to the attention of its customers by enclosing a leaflet with all its quarterly bills. As the hon. Member for Worsley brought a crop of leaflets, I have also brought the one that BT issued. It contains important information about the call barring service and how people can avail themselves of it. It is too early to say what impact call barring will have and how many customers will take up the offer, but I am sure that the facility will ease the fears of many worried parents who have written to Oftel or my Department.

The precision of call barring has been improved by the decision to confine adult premium rate services to one prefix—0898 on the BT network. Other premium rate services such as information services can still be accessed via BT on 0891 if the account holder so wishes, so access to those services, which are a beneficial and innovative use of the telephone network, need not be lost.

Another facility which is of value in controlling access is itemised billing. By specifying the number called, the duration of the call and its cost, itemised billing gives account holders knowledge of any misuse of their lines. That facility is available to 85 per cent. of BT's customers and should be almost universally available by the end of 1995.

Let me now give some detail about how the controls on adult services are implemented. A key role is played by ICSTIS in this. That independent body was set up in 1986 by BT and a trade association of the service providers. It is funded by the network operators. ICSTIS drew up a code of practice for premium rate services. That code has been under continual review and has been amended several times. The current edition published in October 1992 is the fifth.

ICSTIS administers the code and adjudicates on breaches. As I explained earlier, these are in effect breaches of the contract that the service provider has with the network operator. If ICSTIS decides that there has been a breach, two possible actions follow. If the breach involves a recorded message service, ICSTIS recommends to the network operator what the sanction should be. The network operators have agreed to carry out ICSTIS recommendations. These can mean the disconnection of the service or, in more serious cases, banning the service provider from operating any premium rate services.

In cases involving line services, where the caller speaks to someone over the telephone, ICSTIS makes its recommendation to Oftel.

Mr. Nigel Evans

My hon. Friend spoke about the code of conduct that providers of services ought to observe. I am worried about several points. One is the list of advertisements which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) read out. Either the people are not getting what they think that they are paying for, and therefore are being conned, or they are getting what they are paying for, so the services ought to be banned. There is an inconsistency there.

Mr. Hamilton

As I have never availed myself of any of these telephone services, I cannot speak from personal experience about whether one is more likely to be conned or to be gratified. The intervention by my hon. Friend is fair. My guess is that people are more likely to be conned—if the code is being observed, the caller will not get what he expects.

Mr. William Ross

Some months ago, I received through the post a formidable array of material complaining about such phone calls, so I took the precaution of ringing up some services. The first service that I rang sounded rather like a cow calving, with moaning and groaning, and I have had a fair experience of that in my life. Some of the others were more explicit and, as the father of teenage children, I was quite disgusted by them. If the Minister has not availed himself of such services, will he go home and ring one—he cannot do it from his office, because he cannot dial out of this place, even for a useful service and see what he thinks? Then he can speak from experience, and there is nothing better than that.

Mr. Hamilton

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the subject is not my responsibility within the Department, and I am filling in for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who is attending the Telecommunications Council in Brussels. I shall not take up the hon. Gentleman's kind offer, but will leave it to my hon. Friend—who shares my views on many things—to give me a second-hand report.

The Director General of Telecommunications has a statutory duty to consider representations about telecommunications services. In 1988, the director general's concern about some aspects of premium rate services led him to refer them for investigation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC's report in 1989 led to certain premium rate services—including one-to-one adult services and chatlines—being made the subject of new conditions in BT's licence.

Conditions 33a and 33b state that BT may not allow service providers to provide any of those so-called "controlled services", unless the director general has recognised a code of practice regulating the provision of such services. The director general recognised the ICSTIS code for that purpose.

One of the conditions of the code is that all providers of controlled services should maintain an adequate compensation fund. The purpose is to compensate account holders whose lines are used without their permission by others to access the premium rate services and who find themselves liable for large bills. The failure to comply with that condition on the compensation fund led the director general to close down chatline services.

The fund for one-to-one services is administered by an independent adjudicator within ICSTIS. In 1991, it made 234 compensation awards to customers with a value of just under £135,000. The current system of regulation includes a code of practice administered by an independent self-regulatory body, with the Office of Telecommunications involved for one-to-one services.

The same sanctions apply in both cases. In the case of recorded messages, the operator acts on the recommended action of ICSTIS, while for one-to-one services, Oftel requires the operator to take action against the service provider, on the recommendation of ICSTIS. ICSTIS comprises 12 people, including lawyers, a doctor, a justice of the peace, a trade union leader and members with experience in consumer affairs, social work and telecommunications. The committee employs a full-time staff of about 40 to carry out monitoring and to take action on breaches of the code.

ICSTIS deals with all premium rate services, not merely adult services, which make up only 18 per cent. of the sector and generated revenue of about £36 million in 1991, out of a total of £200 million for all premium rate services. In 1991, of 6,753 complaints received by ICSTIS, 845 only—about 13 per cent.—related to adult services. ICSTIS made adjudications in that year which led to 689 services being removed from the public network and an additional 373 being amended. Those figures include other services as well as the adult services under consideration in this debate.

I am informed by ICSTIS that about one third of the disconnected services were adult message services. ICSTIS's code covers the content of the messages and that of advertisements for them. Article 5.6.4 of the code lays down that such services cannot be advertised in free publications and that in those that are generally available —other than so-called "top-shelf" publications—advertisements must not contain

pictures or words of a sexually suggestive nature which are unacceptably offensive. Since that article was introduced in the code in May 1991, ICSTIS has conducted four major surveys of all publications in the "generally available" category. Those surveys took place in May and October 1991 and February and July 1992. In total, 400 advertisements were considered, resulting in 178 adjudications, of which 80 per cent. were adverse. Those resulted in access being barred to nearly 500 services. Since then, there has been a distinct improvement in the content of advertisements.

It is due to ICSTIS's activities as well as pressure from readers that a number of tabloid newspapers that once carried advertisements for the services no longer do so.

Mr. Nigel Evans

I declare that I have not used those services either, but I have spoken to people who have. Is my hon. Friend aware that the first minute or so of some calls is used to provide the caller with other numbers, whereby the service provider may be able to get out of those rules and regulations? The caller can simply ring those numbers and reach other services which the provider would not dare advertise in the normal way.

Mr. Hamilton

I shall take my hon. Friend's word for it.

A criticism that has been made of ICSTIS in the past is that service providers who are disconnected can simply set up again with new services. ICSTIS has always had the power to seek an assurance from service providers that their services would adhere to the code in the future. It now also has the power to recommend that the network operators ban service providers from operating a specific type of service or any premium rate service.

ICSTIS does not just react to complaints but undertakes its own monitoring of the adult services. In the case of live one-to-one adult services where the code's provisions are generally tougher than for recorded message services, there is a requirement on the service providers to tape record all conversations and deliver the tapes on request to ICSTIS.

Mr. Lewis

On the advertisements and the trawl that ICSTIS carries out from time to time, I should be glad to give the Minister the newspaper that I brandished earlier if he will confirm that 90 per cent. of the advertisements in it fall foul of ICSTIS's code of practice and that he will wipe them out overnight.

Many of those involved in this long and arduous argument believe that ICSTIS, as constituted, is not adequate to the task. The Minister talks about tapes being delivered, but the people who operate many of the one-to-one services either border on or are very much part of the criminal fraternity. They boast that they can get around any of the strictures that ICSTIS places on them.

In the next few weeks, journalists on a number of newspapers will come together with some powerful evidence to prove my point. Their evidence will hit the news-stands in short order once the work is completed. The Minister must be extremely careful not to be cajoled and coerced by the fluid conversation of the chairman of ICSTIS or those who advise him about ICSTIS's efficacy.

Mr. Hamilton

I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who will be interested in pursuing the matter with him.

ICSTIS also has the right to visit the premises of one-to-one service providers at any time to ensure that the code is complied with.

The Government are alive to the dangers posed by adult services. We are satisfied that there is a system that monitors and controls those services. The system sets standards for the content of the services, which are stricter than for other media. The monitoring mechanism enables breaches of the guidelines to be picked up. There is a series of sanctions including, for persistent offenders, the possibility of being banned completely from operating the services. Access is dealt with through the widening availability of call barring, itemised billing and controls on where the services can be advertised. The system of control is effective and not static. As I have demonstrated, it has changed to counter new threats in the area of adult services. Both the Director General of Telecommunications and my Department keep the matter under constant review.

10.54 pm

Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who has assiduously pursued the porn lines and raised, both in the House and the country, people's concern about the nature of those lines. The Government seem incapable of providing any regulation in line with what my hon. Friend rightly calls for and the country demands.

We know the Government's philosophy on all services provided by the private sector—that the free market can do no wrong. That philosophy is no better exemplified than by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and the absent Minister to whom he frequently referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Technology. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs finds himself isolated in the House tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley rightly asked him questions, as he has done in previous debates over the years, about whether people should opt in and about the nature of the regulation. Sadly, those questions remain unanswered.

The Minister made a telling contribution on the nature of the Government's policy of opting in or opting out. It appears that it is in order for the Government to make trade union members opt in to ballots for trade unions and membership of trade unions, but it is wrong for the Government to force householders, home owners and others with telephones to opt in to services—obviously not porn services—but others that cost them much money. The line is drawn between what the Government want to force trade unions to do and what it wants to force on the free market, no matter how dubious the activities.

Mr. Nigel Evans

The hon. Member must accept that there is a distinct difference between having the choice of telephoning the numbers—which subscribers can do through their current lines—and forcing somebody to become a trade union member so that he has to opt out of that service.

Mr. Griffiths

We are talking about choice in both cases: the choice of people to opt in to trade unions and the choice of people to opt in to the sex, porn lines or other services. We want to stop such services, but we see no reason why people should not have the choice of opting in to any of the legitimate services—other than the porn lines—that are provided. That view was explicitly spelt out on page 37 of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on chatline and message services that was presented in January 1989.

It was, of course, the service providers in the free market that told the commission that the proposals of the Director General of Telecommunications for making service providers responsible for contracting-in … in respect of chatlines were unacceptable. Sadly, the Government listened to only one side of the argument. Typically, they listened only to that side of the argument that had the capital to back up its argument, rather than to ordinary people with fewer resources with legitimate concerns.

Let us consider the Government's action on porn lines and services. The Minister could hardly come to the House tonight and claim that the Government have taken tough action. I am glad that he did not try to do so, as the Government have taken no such action. The maximum fine for the porn services is a laughable £1,000—the figure to which the Government raised the fine in October 1992.

Sex line bosses openly boast about the Government's tolerance of their activities. One sex line boss told The Mail on Sunday on 29 November, barely a fortnight ago: frankly, I know what the law says, but we easily get around it. My girls can really say what they like on the phones. We know that section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 makes it a clear offence to send grossly offensive, obscene or menacing messages over the phone, but with a fine of a paltry £1,000 it is hardly surprising that sex line bosses are laughing at the Minister, because they know that in his heart he does not intend to regulate a market that generates £200 million, much of it profits made at the expense of the misery of others.

Mr. Lewis

It is instructive to note that ICSTIS, Oftel and the Government between them have not brought one prosecution under section 43(1) of the Telecommunications Act. Operators are merely told to change their format or to take off the lines, and Ministers accept that sanction.

Mr. Griffiths

I see the heads in the Chamber nodding with shock at that information. The Mail on Sunday and journalists Denya Allen and Tanya Reed have carried out excellent studies of the sort that my hon. Friend has asked the Home Office to carry out. They have discovered a catalogue of feeble policing. One sex line firm, Bluebase Ltd., is cited in the August ICSTIS report for describing sexual acts in an offensive way". I am pleased to say that it was barred—but only for 14 days. In the next month, the same company, under this Government's telecommunications regime, was found guilty of offering two services that breached the "debase, degrade and demean" criteria, in addition to the "grave offence" criterion clearly set out in the code. The company claimed that it had withdrawn both services, yet one of those services still operates under the very nose of the Minister and his officers in the DTI.

In another case, Telecommunications Ltd. was barred from access to the numbers—again for two weeks—after two offences of advertising in a free newspaper—clearly against the ICSTIS code of conduct. The company was let off the offence in September, after claiming that it was merely the fault of the booking agent. A month later, in October, it tried to blame another free sheet when it was caught committing the same offence again. Again, the punishment was simply to be barred from access to the number for two weeks. Why does not the Minister tackle companies like Bluebase Ltd. and Telecommunications Ltd., given that they are openly ignoring the code—only to have pitifully weak penalties imposed on them for doing so? Why do not the Government bring in far tougher measures?

Dr. Spink

The Telecommunications Act 1984 comes under the umbrella of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. If the Government introduced legislation to strengthen the latter Act, to achieve some of what the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) wants, could we expect Labour support for the Government's action?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question, and I give him this assurance on behalf of Labour Front Benchers. Anything that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley propose to stamp out such phone lines that commands all-party support will be firmly endorsed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sorry that the same cannot be said by members of the Government Front Bench. However, I know that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) will bring his redoubtable persuasive pressures to bear on his colleagues over their lack of action.

The Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services had a number of opportunities to condemn such practices outright, and I took a close look at its recent press releases. I draw the attention of the House to a ICSTIS press release dated Monday 22 June, which announced a record number of services closed. I am sure that the House welcomes that, especially in the light of tonight's debate. I hope that development will have all-party support—barring members of the Government Front Bench.

The press release runs to three pages and goes into detail about the record number of closed services, but does not make a single mention of porn lines. A key example of the lines that ICSTIS trumpets about removing is this; Callers had in reality had to listen to a lengthy promotion for a water purifying system". That is the sole example that ICSTIS cites of the 689 services that were removed during the year. Not one word of concern about the porn lines that have so troubled the House and the country. No mention of the problems that my hon. Friend rightly raised, and of the fear that sex lines generate among the public. No mention of the fact—and I am grateful to the Minister for giving us one useful fact tonight—that only one third of the lines removed were porn services.

I lay down this challenge to ICSTIS. It should stop focusing exclusively on the promotion of water purifying systems and concentrate on publicising the 230 porn lines that ICSTIS was forced to remove. Why was so little publicity given to them?

My hon. Friend makes a modest request. He asks for an independent Home Office study of the impact of sex lines. Right hon. and hon. Members know of the allegations made by constituents of the malevolent influence of sex lines in sex cases in our constituencies. I have received many such letters, as have other right hon. and hon. Members—including one last weekend, which related to a sex case too horrible to mention. However, it has been given a great deal of publicity in Edinburgh and in the rest of Scotland because of the leniency of the sentence passed on the offender—something which I and others are taking up.

My hon. Friend is asking only for an independent study of the impact of sex lines, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to that invitation to the Home Office to undertake such a study. I know that the public harbour deep suspicions that some assaults, rapes and other horrendous sexual crimes are directly connected with the existence of porn lines.

The flaws in self-regulation are clear. It is shocking that the organisation responsible for monitoring sex lines should employ a staff of only 25 to listen to the millions of telephone calls that are made every year. How can they be expected to act as guardians of public values, and to provide the necessary safeguards? The reason why there are only 25 staff is, of course, the business's unwillingness to fund a proper investigation and proper vetting of telephone lines.

The same people who are laughing at the Minister for failing to introduce proper penalties—for failing to bar those who operate sex lines not just for 14 days, but once and for all—are laughing at ICSTIS; and I must say, with some sadness, that they are right to do so, as ICSTIS is clearly not doing its job properly. ICSTIS boasts that, in the past year, telephone users have been paid £475,000 in compensation as a result of misuse of chat line services. That however, should be set against the £200 million business generated by the sales.

Labour's message is clear. These porn lines are operating with the clear sanction of the Government—or, at least, because of Government inaction—and they must be stopped. Labour wholly supports my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley in that regard; indeed, I believe that much of the House supports him. We are very disappointed that the Minister has failed to tackle the problem—preferring to blame his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology—and has given us no reassurance. He may think that he can brush the matter under the carpet, but Labour will continue to pursue it until the law is changed and there is adequate regulation of this disgraceful business.