Periodicals (Protection of Children) (Hansard, 6 February 1996)

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require publishers of periodicals to display prominently on the front cover of their publications their own assessment of the youngest age for which they consider that publication to be suitable; and for related purposes. The House has many duties, but none is more important than the duty that we owe to our children. The influences on children in British society are many and varied. The House must be satisfied that it is doing its best to create the healthiest climate possible for our children to grow up in. I am not convinced that we are rising to that challenge.
I greatly appreciate the support for the Bill that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of House. It suggests that my view is widely shared. The country has been shocked by the case of the 13-year-old bride of a Turkish waiter. It has led many people to question our nation's moral condition.
We should not be surprised that children respond in worrying ways, when we consider the pressures that are placed on them. As a parent, I worry about all those pressures, whether they be from television soap operas, pop music lyrics, our increasingly materialistic society or the growing drug culture.
I start from the premise that, although children may be physically mature younger, it is not necessarily true that they are emotionally mature any sooner. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I believe that childhood innocence still has its value. We may have to warn children of dangers rather younger, but, in doing so, we should not go further than is absolutely necessary to protect them, and we must not lead them to admire aspects of adult behaviour that are less than admirable.
Therefore, the Bill deals only with one aspect of a much larger problem. In this general climate, some influences stand out as especially worrying and yet capable of some control. My Bill deals with one of those: teenage girls' magazines.
Hon. Members whose memory of teenage magazines is of the Beano, The Dandy, Jackie, Bunty, Eagle and Look and Learn, may be somewhat puzzled by my concern. I invite them to consider just the covers, never mind the contents, of some of the magazines that are on sale and aimed at young girls. They state:

"Sex and you—read our sealed section now!"

"Men unzipped—an intimate guide to men's minds (and bodies!)"

"Red hot! Sizzling male model posters inside".

"I had sex with my ex, but was forgiven".

"Boys in the buff—shots so hot we sealed the pages".

"First time sex—how to get it right".

"Seven steps to sexual heaven—bedtime bliss starts here".

"Your sex secrets—I've slept with over 100 boys".

Inside, the contents are even more explicit. The worst case was probably that of TV Hits. In the November edition of a magazine probably read widely by 10 and 11-year-olds, there was a reply to a letter giving precise details of how to perform oral sex—and I mean precise.
The problem pages are often the worst offenders. Letters pages that could often be about the real emotional and physical problems of adolescence too often 147 degenerate into squalid titillation. One page in a magazine aimed at a young audience is called: "Let's talk about SEX".
The magazines defend themselves by saying that they are offering important advice not offered elsewhere by schools or by parents. That defence is not entirely untrue. Some of the advice that they offer is sensible and useful, but much is not. All the advice is not wrong or inappropriate—girls do grow up younger and need franker advice than the sort once offered by Jackie, but the letters are often written using language more usually seen on the walls of public conveniences. The answers, even in magazines aimed at 12-year-olds and therefore read by much younger children, give explicit advice on sexual technique.
It is not just the letters—it is their context. Role models are offered. In the present edition of It's Bliss, celebrities such as Jon Bon Jovi, Sean Maguire and Prince boast of losing their virginity at 12, 14 and 11. Such boasts undermine the magazines' claims they are offering only advice that is urgently needed.
Take the editor's letter in the current edition of one magazine: Us MORE! girls are not known for being shy and retiring when we go on the pull, so I was gagging to see how we'd compare to a bunch of lechy lads out looking for a bit of skirt action. The only impression any girl reading such magazines could be left with is that her personal fulfilment will come only from looking good, wearing the right clothes and getting a good sex life. That is deeply sexist. Girls should be encouraged to believe that there are other ways of leading a meaningful life. Sexual stereotyping of that sort is wrong.
Does it matter? Does such open discussion about sex encourage girls into promiscuity? I believe that it does.
The House need not take my word for it. Only last Friday, Daniel Wright, of the Medical Research Council's medical sociology unit, told a British Medical Association conference of his concerns about the coverage of sex in magazines for young girls: The way sexuality is presented suggests that most young people are engaged in sexual relations". According to reports of his speech, he said that girls were given the impression that they were being left out if they did not engage in sex. But research shows that only 23 per cent. of girls under 16 have had sexual relationships.
For my money, even 23 per cent. is too high a proportion, but we must not allow the pressures to grow, and thus increase the numbers. I say that not because I am a prude, but because I believe that sex is not a mechanical activity performed for immediate gratification, but a God-given gift that, in a loving relationship, is one of the best things about being a human being. Those magazines undermine the value and the importance of sex.
I do not say for one minute that we can return to some age of lost innocence; the pass has been sold. Encouraging magazines such as Sugar, Mizz, It's Bliss, 19, and More! to behave more responsibly will not change the world. But it could help to prevent further deterioration. I believe that some of the magazines, too, want to avoid any further drift into salaciousness and smut. Others, such as More!, which is aimed at an older audience, could not but gain from having that fact better 148 understood by readers and parents. Above all, the editors need to pull back. The current edition of 19 gets as close to full frontal male nudity as it is possible to get without actually showing it, and the centre-page spread in Mizz is the same.
Since I launched my campaign, I have been overwhelmed with letters and telephone calls from parents saying, "We didn't realise what was in them," or, "We thought it was only us who were worried. Now we feel we can do something about it." I want to help editors, parents and schools by making it easier to learn what is inside the magazines. I want editors and publishers to decide the lowest target age for each magazine, and to show it on the front cover.
Because there would be an outcry if a magazine made a major error of judgment by publishing material unsuitable for its own declared age range, I do not believe that any complex regulatory machinery is necessary— simply a sanction for failing to display on the front cover a clearly defined target age for the periodical.
I do no more than ask the magazines to follow the lead already set, entirely voluntarily, by the computer software manufacturers. I had the privilege of launching their now well-established age classification system. The European Leisure Software Publishers Association—ELSPA—the trade association for well-known names such as Sega and Nintendo, which I am pleased to say is based in Worcestershire, was concerned that a statutory system might be imposed after concern was expressed about the violent and sexual content of certain games. ELSPA moved voluntarily, and so far it has succeeded. The Bill gives the magazine publishers the chance to do the same. They would be well advised to seize the opportunity to clean up their act, before pressure grows for a more draconian system.
The Bill is a serious attempt to legislate; unlike so many ten-minute Bills, it is not simply a way of debating or drawing attention to an issue. It is simple, it is not bureaucratic, it has no public expenditure implications, and it enjoys overwhelming support both inside and outside the House. It would impose no burden on newsagents, who have for many months called for just such a scheme, and who strongly support the Bill.
The Bill does not mean censorship. Magazines would be free to publish as they saw fit. They would simply have to be straightforward about who they wanted to read them. The Bill would not encourage girls to buy magazines intended for older girls; they already know what is in them. It is their parents who have been in the dark. Neither is it an attempt to deny young people essential advice. I accept that the advice in magazines has to be more explicit than that given 20 years ago, if only because girls reach puberty at an earlier age.
I leave it to the magazines themselves to decide how to go about the task that the Bill would impose on them. If I were them, I would set up some kind of organisation under the Periodical Publishers Association to monitor and implement the scheme, and adopt an age-range classification system.
The Bill enjoys all-party support. My fellow sponsors know that parents, teachers, Church groups, newsagents, journalists and even many of the children at whom these magazines are aimed, want change. They are right, and I am determined to ensure that they get it.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I welcome the debate, and I shall not try to divide the House. Although it is right that we should debate the Bill, we should proceed carefully. My fear, and the fear expressed by many outside the House, is that, by legislating in such a way, we may not achieve the objective of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), or that of others who support his proposals. The hon. Gentleman and I must accept that men of our age, even parents of daughters of his daughter's age, may not be the best people to form judgments on such issues.
The law is clear; it says that the age of consent for a girl is 16, and that should be reinforced in the House. Advice is clear-indeed, I concur with the hon. Gentleman in citing the advice of the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council and others— that it is better not to have sex before the age of 16; people are not normally ready for it. The Church, other faith groups and many others are even clearer, and say that sex, especially intercourse, should be left until marriage.
Even the most well-regulated households, however, do not necessarily manage to avoid under-age sex. According to all the evidence, one in five young people have had intercourse before they are 16 years old. That, of course, means that four in five have not. It is therefore not right for youngsters to try to influence their peers to have sex by saying that everyone else is doing so.
It is, of course, also true—I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes this—that, although young people develop in different ways and have different interests at different times, the fact that some people may not have any form of sex until well after the age of 16 does not mean that most youngsters are not interested in sex well before then.
What should we do? It is a case of separating fantasy from fact. We regulate magazines, yet we do not regulate radio, television, plays, records, tapes, compact discs, newspapers, books or advertisments. Cinema is in part regulated. Records banned from being played on Radio 1 because they were regarded as—potentially—too sexy immediately shot to the top of the charts.
Young people say that they would rather receive information from parents or at school, but that parents and schools are often not very good at giving that information, and that their peer group and magazines are the best places to turn to.
In an article printed in the Evening Standard on Monday, a girl of 13, who reads two magazines—Shout and Sugar—said: I think they are the best. They give you really good advice but I don't think I would ever actually write in. Reading about other people's problems is really helpful. I'd be embarrassed to ask my mum some of the questions they ask the agony aunts. I am not aware that there has been any criticism that the information given in the magazines has been wrong, which is often not the case with information culled from other sources. It is also clear that young people ask questions and want answers about some matters about which people find it difficult to be explicit.
To be fair, the magazines generally contain substantially more non-sex parts than sex parts. Indeed, we must be careful not to overstate the amount of sex-related content on the pages that carry it. On the 150 problem page of a magazine published this month, sensitive responses are given to questions about family rejection, being scared in a home alone, being sexually abused and coping with arguments at home.
Only two letters out of eight dealt with sex. One concerned a reader's knowledge of her brother's under-age sexual activity. Advice was given that it is illegal, and that, if she could not persuade him to stop, she should inform her parents. The other letter was from a girl who had had sex and wished that she had not. The reply was good; it said: relationships don't need to centre around sex, so this is a lesson for the rest of you". Some of the difficult issues, such as pregnancy, petting, contraception and orgasm, need to be dealt with in a factual way, since people in their early teens ask questions about such matters and deserve factual answers. All the magazines that I am aware of seek professional, independent advice before writing their advice columns.

§ Mr. Luff
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is nodding. The Brook advisory centres are certainly regularly consulted on writing the agony aunt or agony uncle columns, as are the Family Planning Association and the Health Education Authority.
Very important to the defence of the present situation is the fact that there has been no great recent upsurge in the number of teenage pregnancies. Indeed, as advice has increased, teenage pregnancy rates in this country have gone down.
Secondly, there is no evidence that sexual education leads to more sexual activity. Indeed, some say that such education may delay the onset of activity, and that activity may decrease overall. Lastly, the countries with the most clear and uncomplicated attitude—such as the Netherlands—have lower conception rates than this country. Surprisingly, the rate of conception in the Netherlands is one seventh of the rate in England and Wales.
How should we proceed? First, we must not end up with an age marking that makes those magazines more rather than less appealing. Secondly, it is difficult to define an exact age when young people develop, and that applies to boys as well as girls. Thirdly, we must not make it seem that sex is talked about more than everything else, and, in doing so, make sex the centre of attention.
There is an equal danger of cultivating a view that other things that the magazines promote—a beautiful body, expensive clothes, designer life styles and a certain range of luxuries—are as desirable as anything else. We should be clear about giving the facts, but also about raising young people's horizons. We should make sure that there is proper consultation on the issue before we proceed to legislate.
We should be discouraging young people from having under-age sex, but not pretending that it is not entirely natural to be interested in it. We should be informing young people that most of their peer group are not having under-age sex, but tell them what happens when they do. We should not pretend that information that is not obtained in teenage magazines will not be obtained somewhere else.
151 We must proceed carefully, because hon. Members may not be the best people to teach parents in the rest of country how to manage these matters. If we proceed carefully, we may be able to have a healthy attitude to this matter, as we have with all matters of concern to young people.