HC Deb 04 May 1993 vol 224 cc160-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

1.22 am
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

I come to this Adjournment debate with mixed feelings. I am pleased to have won the opportunity to raise again the concern that I and many colleagues in all parts of the House feel about the availability of explicit and violent pornography in this country, through an increasingly wide range of technological media. I am saddened that the debate is necessary and that the House will have to listen again to a Minister seeking to persuade us that all is well, that action is under way on a number of fronts, and that the key statute in this area, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, should be left well alone. At least, that is what I expect the Minister to say, but I shall be delighted if I am proved wrong and he chooses the opportunity to announce the fundamental review of the test of obscenity in the 1959 Act that is so necessary.

I will come in a moment to the individual types of technology that can now be used to transmit pornography, but the initial focus of concern, in the House and outside, last spring and summer was an horrific example of degrading material produced on what is an old form of technology, the printing press. I refer, of course, to the book "Juliette" published by Arrow Books in 1991 and containing a litany of extremely violent acts against children, women, the mentally ill—indeed, anyone who was available to be tortured, raped, sexually assaulted and murdered. The publication of such material evoked great concern in this House, and after a briefing paper containing extracts had been made available to honourable Members early-day motion 312 quickly obtained over 100 signatures.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), in her first Adjournment debate, chose to raise the issue and expressed astonishment that the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided that action against the book under the 1959 Act was unlikely to succeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) told the Minister that, in 15 years in the Army, he had never seen such horrific material as that contained in "Juliette". The best that the Minister could do in response to that pressure was to argue that a number of well-rounded measures exist to deal with pornography as it occurs."—[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1068.] I have emphasised the case of "Juliette" at some length because if our law is inadequate to deal with what is an extremely old form of technology—publishing—I seriously question how effective it can be for newer forms of technology which are more sophisticated and change with each passing day.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) picked up that concern when he sought leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill on 27 October 1992. He drew attention to the problems of satellite television and computer pornography. He described the 1959 Act as the keystone in the legislative arch dealing with pornography —but, sadly, a keystone that was crumbling.

The responses that we received from the Government to all that parliamentary concern was hesitant and mixed. There had been one meeting at the Home Office in July, and although the Minister listened carefully, nothing was promised. A meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister then took place in November. I am glad to say that we received a more positive response from my right hon. Friend who showed great personal concern about the kinds of pornography available and, in particular, the difficulties proposed by new technology. We were assured that the Home Office would look at the matter more closely.

Many more hon. Members realised the true extent of the problem when the hard-working officers of the obscene publications squad of the Metropolitan police at Scotland Yard came to the House on 24 and 25 February this year to put on an exhibition of the kinds of material with which they have to deal daily, and the need for tougher laws. Some 300 Members of both House of Parliament attended that exhibition over the two days. Members did not attend out of some prurient interest but to satisfy themselves whether the concerns that others expressed were based on fact or fiction.

The exhibition included all kinds of material. Extracts from "Juliette" were again displayed. Material from pornographic magazines was on show. Child pornorgraphy in all its horror was depicted graphically, through photographs and video material. Adult video pornography, including films certified by the British Board of Film Classification as so-called "sex education", were shown, as were excerpts from the notorious Red Hot Dutch television channel. A computer was also available to demonstrate the problems of that technology.

Since that event, the Home Office has sought to suggest that virtually all the material on display was illegal under the current law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated that claim in a letter to me last week. I have to say that that is not the information that I have received from the Metropolitan police, from the Attorney-General or from the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of the material on display, especially the child pornography, has been the subject of successful prosecutions under current law, but even in that area prosecutions against computerised child pornography have run into problems. I have already mentioned how "Juliette" could not be acted against, and Red Hot Dutch television is currently the subject of action, the impact of which we have yet to see. At the exhibition, the Metropolitan police described the difficulties that they have with the current law. It is disingenuous to suggest that those difficulties lie only with enforcement and plugging minor gaps. Any positive action is welcome, but a fundamental review is necessary.

That brings me to the problems of particular technological media. I refer briefly to videos, telephone pornography, computers and satellite television. The video recorder has transformed the lifestyles of many people in this country. Sadly, however, as seems to be the case with many things that bring pleasure, there are sleazy business men who seek to exploit a commercial opportunity through demeaning and degrading others. Video nasties quickly became the scourge of our society in the early 1980s and were dealt with only after my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) introduced his private Member's Bill which became the Video Recordings Act 1984. The regulatory system introduced in that Act has largely worked well. But in the past couple of years signs have emerged that the pornographers have found new ways of getting around the 1984 Act and have thrown the interpretation of the 1959 Act obscenity test into further doubt.

In 1991, the British Board of Film Classification decided to grant a certificate to a video purporting to be sex education. I am advised that that film, taken on its own and viewed by a couple who are committed partners, could have some benefit. However, many warned at the time that that type of film was bending the standard and that pornographers would be quick to exploit it. They were right.

The BBFC's latest annual report includes recognition by the board that it might have to relax standards for videos having no educational purpose available in sex shops—the so-called R18 category—because of the explicitness of scenes in sex education videos.

Scotland Yard's obscene publications squad also reported that, in its view, some so-called sex education material is as explicit as other videos that it had previously prosecuted under the 1959 Act. It seems that the BBF'C is wrongly seeking to become the arbiter of what is obscene rather than the courts.

Another new medium greatly exploited by pornographers in the past eight years is premium rate telephone services—0898 numbers. I will not rehearse here the ins and outs of that particular industry because the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—whom I admire for his vigilance—has done so many times in the House, most recently in his Adjournment debate on 14 December last year.

I am pleased to say that there are, in that regard, some grounds for encouragement. In common with many right hon. and hon. Members, I have not been impressed over the years with the premium rate telephone industry's self-regulatory body—the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services. It is difficult to have confidence in a body that had to revise its draft code of practice six times in as many years to regulate an industry that is worth more than £ 200 million per annum.

Moreover, when we consider that the chairman of that body for most of its six years' of existence was quoted in the The Mail on Sunday on 25 February 1990 as saying I couldn't care a hoot. Why shouldn't people engage in private conversatons about pornography?", the House will understand why one had little confidence in the ICSTIS. It now has a new chairman, Brenda Dean, whom I met last week to discuss how she is tackling the problems. I wish her well in her new appointment.

No advertisements for such lines should appear in any publication, other than those that might be found on the top shelf in a newsagent. I do not understand why such degrading services should be available from every home in the United Kingdom that has a telephone. Telephone subscribers should be able to receive such services only if they deliberately choose to opt in. The current system of call barring is akin to closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

As to satellite television, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will state tonight the current state of the Government's action against Red Hot Dutch. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage decided before Easter that decoders that enable customers to receive that obscene channel could be banned by the British Government within the terms of European agreements on transfrontier television. I ask him to describe how the Government intend to keep ahead of a commercial company that is determined to make money from that pornographic service and plans to exploit other technological means of ensuring that its signal gets through.

My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that my inquiries suggest that such material is now broadcast on television in Denmark, from where the signal now emanates. But the Danes—rather lamely—will not take action against Red Hot Dutch themselves.

What further action do the Government plan against continental television, especially against the service being broadcast to existing subscribers? What if the programmes are recorded on video from an individual's television set and the videos begin to circulate, as I believe they will? Will action be taken against those videos?

Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about newspaper reports that the German Government have requested that action be taken against the "adult channel" that may be broadcast to Germany from the United Kingdom? I am pleased that some other European countries are beginning to see such matters in the way that many in this country do.

Computers are increasingly posing problems for the police. A particular difficulty is one that Scotland Yard explained at the time of its exhibition in the House—when a picture is generated by computer which superimposes a child's head on an adult body. Apparently, the courts have decided that such an image cannot be deemed to be that of a child. I consider that decision monstrous, and I believe that the Government must close the loophole as soon as possible.

However, other aspects of computer technology are even more worrying. I think in particular of developments in what is called "virtual reality", in which three-dimensional images can be created by computer and projected through a special headset. This amazing technology then allows the individual to interact with the image so that it is, as the name suggests, virtual reality. Such technology can clearly have benefit—for example, in training for complicated technical tasks—but what pornographer would pass up the opportunity to make money from marketing interactive sexual acts, including those against children? I wonder what will be the Government's response to that horrific development.

I cannot claim that the Government have been wholly inactive in response to these various developments. The picture that comes to my mind to describe their response is that of the small boy in the story from Holland who seeks to keep the water from coming through the dyke by putting his finger in the hole. I see a lot of energy being expended by Ministers seeking to find small holes which they can try and plug with limited action; but my hon. Friend is rapidly running out of fingers.

I do not believe that that is good enough. Of course, any action that restricts pornography is welcome, but short-term fixes are not sufficient. The real problems lie with the structure of the dyke itself—in this case, the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I urge the Government to face up to that fact and to undertake the review that is so desperately necessary. Responding to each new technological development individually is wholly inadequate. Individual Acts of Parliament such as the Video Recordings Act 1984 may produce an element of control of a new medium for a period; but the 1959 Act is the underpinning measure that must cope until such legislation is introduced, and must provide the overall framework. While that framework is weak and unsound, other actions will have limited effect.

It is clear to me from the letter that I received from the Prime Minister that his advice from the Home Office is badly flawed. The Prime Minister draws particular attention in his letter to the example of "Juliette", which I mentioned at the start of my speech. He describes it as "truly horrifying". The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General said that a prosecution in this case could not be made because of the inadequate 1959 Act test of obscenity; yet the Home Office stubbornly refuses to review that test.

The question that my hon. Friend must answer tonight is this: does he disagree with the Attorney-General, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police who say that they cannot secure convictions in some of the worst cases because of the fundamental weakness of the Act? Does he not share the Prime Minister's desire—expressed last week in that letter to me—to see more effective action taken against the worst kind of pornography? If he understands those difficulties and shares those concerns, he will now announce the fundamental review of the law for which we have been pressing.

1.39 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on securing this Adjournment debate. I regret that it may not be possible in the time left for me to reply to every point that she raised, but I undertake to deal with any points that I leave unanswered in correspondence with her.

My hon. Friend asked me about the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The position of the Home Office remains as stated in the Prime Minister's letter, to which she referred. I have, however, done as much as possible to acquaint myself with some of the degrading, vile, filthy and disgusting material to which she rightly drew my attention in earlier debates.

I have visited the obscene publications squads in Manchester and at Scotland Yard and have spent many hours looking at the technology that my hon. Friend so graphically described. She did the House a considerable service by arranging for the Scotland Yard exhibition to be shown here so that right hon. and hon. Members could become acquainted with this type of material.

I shall start where I intend to finish—by talking about what we have been doing since my hon. Friend raised the subject with the Prime Minister at that meeting. I undertook to look at what could be done about this vile trade. An effective way of dealing with pornography is to hit the pornographer in the pocket. These people are in this business for profit. Effective enforcement of the law is a good way of dealing with the problem.

We are looking at ways of strengthening police powers of arrest for those who would seek to trade in all kinds of pornography, including child pornography.

Mrs. Ann Winterton

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack

My hon. Friend took up a considerable amount of the time allocated to the debate. If she wants me to reply to it, I have fewer than 10 minutes in which to do so. I hope that she will allow me to make some progress.

We are exploring ways in which to improve the powers of the police properly to investigate the methods and business affairs of large-scale pornographers. We are examining ways in which the effectiveness of certain search warrants can be improved. We are assessing also how the important powers that the police currently enjoy to seize obscene articles can be streamlined and speeded up.

Those measures are the result of talking to the same people as those to whom my hon. Friend talked—Scotland Yard and the obscene publications squad in Manchester. Having listened to those officers, I formed the judgment that by improving the effectiveness of our enforcement procedures we shall start to bear down on this trade.

As for other matters to which my hon. Friend referred, my constituency, too, has been blighted by the arrival of so-called hi-tech pornography. One of my constituents, Mr. Jeffries, has received a lot of publicity because of his so-called hole-in-the-wall pornography machine. I condemn him for causing so much discomfort and upset to my constituents. However, what he did brought home to me just how strongly good, ordinary folk feel about the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. It underlines the importance of the exhibition that my hon. Friend helped to organise in the House.

My hon. Friend asked how the law could be brought to bear on some of these so-called hi-tech, or 21st century, pornographers. For the record, I would point out that it still remains the case that it is an offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to publish for gain, or to possess for publication, any obscene article. That offence is punishable by an unlimited fine, or three years' imprisonment, or both. That law applies to computer disks in the way that it applies to other articles. It applies equally to satellite television broadcasts and to other television broadcasts.

My hon. Friend might wonder whether the law has in fact been used. In 1992, the Metropolitan police seized 1,000 computer disks under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. In the same year. the Greater Manchester force seized more than 1,500 disks. In addition, in 1991, 218 persons in England and Wales were convicted of the serious offence of trading in pornography of all kinds. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about prosecutorial difficulties. The impression can sometimes be created that the law is unable to act, but it does act.

Expertise is also very important. The work of those involved in Greater Manchester who have a particular knowledge of computer technology is being made more widely available. My officials are considering how best their knowledge can be spread to other police forces which may wish to take action in this sphere. I shall certainly do all that I can to encourage that development.

One of the problems that I and my hon. Friend encountered involved the operation of so-called "bulletin boards" to transmit explicit material down the telephone system into computers. As I said, there are controls over computer disks in the 1959 Act and legal controls over the transmission of pornographic images between computers in cases where no disks change hands. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a criminal offence to send over a public telecommunication any message or other matter which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. That is another example of the law working. That offence would catch an individual —for example, a computer buff—who transmitted a pornographic image over the telephone to a friend, arid it is currently subject to a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine, or £ 1,000. To take up another of my hon. Friend's points, the Government are committed to increasing the penalty for that offence, which also covers those who make nuisance phone calls and provide indecent or obscene "adult" telephone services. I wish to emphasise that point to my hon. Friend.

A moment ago I mentioned bulletin boards. They are also specifically caught by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Material in the form of a visual image comes under the definition of what is called a "programme service" and is caught by section 201 of the Broadcasting Act, so modern computerised pornography can be dealt with under the law in two ways.

My hon. Friend mentioned something which I certainly found very distasteful, the construction by means of computer of the image of a child. I found it profoundly revolting, and I share her concerns about the difficulties of the law in that regard. Thankfully, so far only one example is known, but I assure my hon. Friend that I shall watch the situation closely. I noted carefully what she said. I have seen it for myself, and I think I know how she feels about it. If necessary, we can consider ways in which the law can be strengthened to deal with such imagery.

My hon. Friend did not mention the question of computer games, which I have read about in the newspapers. She touched on the issue when she spoke of her concern about "virtual reality". The definition of a video work in the Video Recordings Act 1984 covers computer games which include moving images, but they are generally exempt from classification. However, that exemption does not apply to games that show human sexual activity, the mutilation or torture of, or gross violence towards, human beings or animals, or human genital organs. If such games are supplied or offered illegally, or possessed for the purpose of supply, without having been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification for classification, those responsible are guilty of an offence and are liable to a fine of £ 20,000.

The enforcement of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is currently being strengthened by a Bill being taken through the other place with the Government's support by Lord Birkett. The measure will be introduced in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will wish to support it.

My hon. Friend also mentioned satellite pornography and asked about the attitude of other European countries to that development. Time does not permit me to go into detail, but, as my hon. Friend knows, that area of policy is within the remit of the Department of National Heritage, and I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for National Heritage and to ensure that she receives a full and proper reply to her questions.

We have been considering carefully many of the matters about which my hon. Friend spoke, and I hope that we are aware of the way in which technology—I have already mentioned virtual reality—is expanding the opportunities for pornography. I emphasise that we shall monitor developments carefully. I have thought about whether the law as it stands can deal with such matters, and I hope that I have proved that the law can act, and has indeed been used. Like my hon. Friend, I am in close touch with the Metropolitan police and with the Manchester obscene publications squad, and I am watching the situation carefully.

Sex education videos are subject both to the Video Recordings Act 1984 and to the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The board's classification does not give immunity from prosecution for obscenity, but the context is important. The "deprave or corrupt" test and the "public good" defence are designed to be applied case by case. It is not true to say that certain types of image are always prohibited; sex education videos may lawfully show images that would not be permitted in other videos. I believe that the BBFC acts conscientiously and responsibly in dealing with those and other difficult matters, but I promise my hon. Friend that I shall keep a close eye on these many difficult issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.