Television (Protection of Children) (Hansard, 26 May 1999)

§ Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East)

My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has drawn the short straw, as Ministers from many Departments could have replied to this debate.

I should at the outset thank Nottingham city council, which has been pursuing the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who I understand has written to the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Secretary on the matter. I almost get the feeling that he is working his way through the Cabinet to ensure that everybody is aware of his concerns. Although this matter pales into insignificance given recent events in Nottingham concerning child protection, it must nevertheless be addressed.

In the spring of 1998, a television company, October Films, began filming children in Nottingham for a documentary that was to be called "Staying Lost". Its motives seemed commendable; indeed, I suspect that it began with all the right motives. It wanted to expose the true state of Britain's street children and the agencies that fail them". I should make it clear that I would wish October Films and others to do that; I would applaud such work. I should also make it clear that I do not seek to defend Nottingham city council or the social services department. I seek to protect children; that is the only motive for my action in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has now joined me. With my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), all Nottingham Members of Parliament are agreed on the issue.

Although October Films began with the very good motive of championing the cause of these children, unfortunately its work did not have that effect. The best scenario would be that it had a negative effect on the children; the worst that the children were exploited in the production of the film.

We are talking about five very vulnerable delinquent children who, under anyone's definition, would be described as at risk. We are talking about two 15-year-old girls, both of whom were engaged in prostitution. One was accommodated by the local authority and the mother of the other had approached the social services department and asked for help. We are talking about three boys of 14, 13 and 12 years old. One child has a care order, one an interim care order, one is on the child protection register and two are on bail. I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister, that we are talking about children who are extremely vulnerable and with whom social workers find it difficult to work at any time. Once the film crew arrived, they found such work impossible.

Several allegations began to come out about what the film crew were doing. There were allegations that some of the scenes were staged, that the children were not homeless in the sense that we would recognise, and that vulnerable children were being encouraged to act anti-socially and irresponsibly. Some allegations were specific: microphones were hidden on the girls before they solicited for prostitution.

322 Other hon. Members and I got to know about the matter when, back on 18 August, the local newspaper reported that the city council was threatening legal action against a television film crew. The leader of the city council was specific. He was quoted as saying to the film company, "Get Out Of Town", and asked it to leave the care and responsibility of the children to the people who are supposed to look after them.

The following day, several articles appeared in national newspapers under headlines such as TV crew 'faked child scenes'", Film of street children 'set up'", Care home children 'taken out to beg for Channel 4 film'", and so on. If the city council was to fulfil its statutory duty, it could do nothing but act, which I welcome.

I have not mentioned many of the allegations because they have been denied and the city council has not pursued them—some are much more serious. However, some allegations were not denied. As a result, the city council took October Films to court. I shall quote now from the judgment of Sir Stephen Brown, president of the Family Division, and return to it later, too. I refer the House to page 9 of his judgment, on which it says, following his acceptance of some denials: I accept their denial. Nevertheless there is an acceptance of the fact that certain of the children were wired up as alleged. Further on one occasion Mr. Roberts"— one member of the television company— did buy vodka for one of the young girls after filming and it is accepted that the film crew accompanied the children on the train ride to Skegness which was of course so far as the boys were concerned an illicit venture both being on bail and subject to curfew and not intending to pay their fares. Even if one accepts every denial, the things to which they admitted are cause for great concern.

As a result of the city council going to court, a decent judgment was made. An injunction was never granted because the company agreed that it would do certain things: it would cease to contact four of the five children whom they were hoping to film for the documentary. The fifth child was back with her parents, and her mother had given consent to the filming.

Given that, people may ask why I am concerned about the matter. I will tell the House my worry. In some respects, I do not mind whether things were set up. The issue is whether, just because somebody possesses a video recorder, he or she should be able to film vulnerable children without parental consent. The film company specifically stated that, as far as it was concerned, it needed neither parental nor local authority consent, even though many of the children were in care. It says that all it needed was the consent of the children.

All the children were aged under 16. One may accept the consent of a 15-year-old, but the three boys were aged 14, 13 and 12. What if they had been aged 11, 10 and nine? When does the need for parental consent come into play? That is one of the most important points. There must be freedom of the press, but it should not be at the expense of the welfare of vulnerable children.

Page 21 of the judgment states: They approached these children without parental consent or knowledge and indeed without the knowledge of anybody whose duty was to seek to afford a degree of supervisory assistance to the children. Undoubtedly misunderstandings occurred as a result. 323 Their conduct went far beyond merely observing the children. I am satisfied that in this case the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court has been properly invoked in respect of the effects of the filming and of the close contact involved in the filming operation on the upbringing of these children. The 'hanging around' the film crew and the excitement which the operation involved undoubtedly affected all these children. I have heard the oral evidence of Mr. Roberts and of Miss Gordon and the oral evidence of the Director of Social Services. The Official Solicitor has commented upon their different perspectives and he has expressed the opinion that he has no doubt about the good faith of all those concerned in this matter. Good faith is not enough. I accept that the company began with good intentions—to expose matters if they were wrong. I am sure that that can be done without putting children at risk. I hope that we will be able to ensure that such people must have parental consent.

Secondly, the people from the film company stayed with the children for months on end, to gain their trust. They say themselves that the idea was to build a close relationship with the children. People who intend to be with children for months, building a close relationship with them, should be subject to the vetting to which every local authority worker is subject. We should ensure that such checks are conducted in future.

The third issue concerns the Independent Television Commission. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to what seemed like half the Cabinet on this issue. He also wrote to the ITC. I found it worrying that the judge said that he would not comment on the conduct of the film crews, as it was not his job to do so. He said that that was a job for the ITC.

Unfortunately, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to the ITC—he telephoned as well—it wrote back:

As I explained, the ITC has no powers to obtain tapes or otherwise intervene in programme content before broadcast. I believe that the ITC rules need to be changed, so that if it sees that someone is breaking its code, it may step in at the beginning.

The issue is not about the content of the final production. I talked to someone this morning who said, "We shall not know whether you are right until we see the final product." The documentary might be brilliant. It might be a "Cathy Come Home" type documentary, which will fire up people to make significant changes. That is not the issue. The issue is whether, in the making of that documentary, children have been harmed. We cannot allow the ends to justify the means. We cannot allow children to be hurt, to be left without protection, in order to create a good documentary. I hope that the ITC will tighten its code of practice to try to ensure that this does not happen again, as I fear that it may.

In some respects, we are lucky that some of the children involved were in care. Would a parent with a delinquent child have been able to take on the film company, to take on Channel 4, and to go to court? I suspect not.

We have had the judgment, but I can envisage a similar situation developing. Nothing has changed. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues, especially in the Home Department, will seek to prevent that by making changes.

I have little time left, but I make a plea about something else. Such subjects can provoke extreme emotion. In the past week in Nottingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North knows, I have had to consider what is probably one of the most emotionally loaded issues. There is discussion about paedophiles being admitted to a 324 unit in my constituency. I have found that it tends to bring out the worst in people. I simply say that I want the subject of today's debate to be dealt with in a non-emotional way, just as I want that issue to be dealt with in a non-emotional way.

In relation to such issues, our prime—many would say our only—concern should be the protection of children. People can rest assured that, in dealing with such situations in future, the protection of children will be my overriding concern.

I hope that, at some time, my hon. Friend the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office will address their minds to future legislation to ensure that the general public are protected, not only from paedophiles, but from paedophiles who are murderers or torturers—the worst type of people, who are being released on to our streets. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation that ensures not only that those people are secure, but that the public know that they are secure. That aspect of the law needs to be changed, and probably the law needs to be changed as it relates to the filming of children.

I do not want to overburden broadcasting with regulations and I do not want to stifle the freedom of the press, but I do not believe that the press can go unfettered—that they can justify anything that they do by saying that they have a right to give children a voice, as one of the reporters said to us. If children are given a voice, but the process of doing so wrecks their lives—there is some evidence that, indirectly, harm was done to these children—we cannot accept that type of freedom.

§ The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who wrote to me at length on the issue. So disturbed was I when I received that letter that he may recall that I sought him out as soon as possible to speak to him about it. When we responded to him, we made the point that broadcasting items are matters for the broadcasters and regulatory authorities, and that there is a limited extent to which the Government can intervene. However, I believe that it is important, given the concern expressed about this matter by all Nottingham Members and the fact that it has been raised in the House, that we give the issue a proper airing. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said that I had drawn the short straw. It is true that some of the matters that he has raised are ones for my colleagues in another Department, and I shall ensure that those are brought to their attention.

First, I shall set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has spoken in detail about what happened. He has made a point of not becoming too emotional about this issue. It is always easy, especially where children are concerned, to become too emotional. I thank him for the measured way in which he has raised the subject. As he said, it concerns a documentary series called "Staying Lost", which October Films has been making for the past two years. The documentary focuses on children in care who end up living on the streets.

Nottingham City council brought the matter to court, accusing the programme makers of faking scenes, and maintained that parental consent should be given before 325 children were allowed to appear in such programmes. Earlier this month, the High Court cleared October Films of faking scenes. As a result of the court case, some of the children were withdrawn. However—it is important to place this on the record—the court expressed concern about the possibility of exploitation of vulnerable children by the media.

I applaud the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East and for Nottingham, North to protect children. That should be a priority for all hon. Members. The children involved were especially vulnerable. It was alleged that they had been encouraged to act irresponsibly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said, it was alleged that microphones were planted on the two young girls, aged only 15, who were engaging in prostitution. As he rightly said, that causes considerable concern, and it should be of great concern to the House. He also said that the freedom of the press should not be at the expense of vulnerable children. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the ITC. At the conclusion of my remarks, I shall answer his three main points. As he said, the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North received from the ITC explained that the ITC does not preview programmes. It is up to the licensees to decide, within the framework of the code and their licence, whether a specific item is suitable for broadcast. However, the ITC has a wide range of powers at its disposal to ensure compliance. They range from a formal warning to financial penalties and, in extreme cases, could lead to the shortening or revoking of a company's licence. Last year, the ITC fined Central Television £2 million for a serious breach of the programme code.

There is a paragraph in the programme code which, I am told, applies to children who are actors. It may not have been relevant in this case, but it may be apposite to place that paragraph on the record, because perhaps we 326 should extend to children who are not actors, but who appear in documentaries, a similar concern to that which we extend to children who are actors. Paragraph 6.4 says: Performances by children under the upper limit of compulsory school age are controlled by Home Office regulations administered by the Local Education Authorities. All such performances, apart from those appearances expressly exempted under the Children and Young Persons Acts, require a licence from the Local Education Authority in whose area the child lives. Parental consent alone is not enough … Particular care should be taken to avoid causing any distress or alarm to children involved in programmes. So that is already in the code. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that the ITC may need to re-examine it.

When the matter first received coverage in the national press, Channel 4, the broadcaster that commissioned the film, made a statement that was reported in the following terms: 'The documentaries will reveal the true state of vulnerable children across the country who have, at some time, fallen out of parental control and slipped through the care net. The public has a right to see this series; Channel 4 believes the films deal with a subject of important public interest.' A spokesman said the channel had subjected the allegations made against the programme company to 'careful scrutiny', and was satisfied that it acted with integrity. 'Channel 4 does not believe they have infringed the ITC's code, nor that they have harmed the interests of the children they are filming'". As my hon. Friend said, when we get a chance to see the documentary, perhaps we can judge that for ourselves.

I shall sum up by responding to the three main points that my hon. Friend made. The point about parental consent, and also the important point about vetting people who are to work with young children, especially vulnerable children, are both matters for my colleagues in the Home Office, and I shall ensure that the concerns expressed will be brought to their attention.

I can also assure my hon. Friend that I shall convey his concerns to the ITC, and that my Department will think about whether there is any need for additional guidance. I shall come back to my hon. Friend on that subject.