Clause 307 - OFCOM's standards code
Communications Bill
10:00 am
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 522, in
clause 307, page 264, line 43, after 'are', insert 'appropriately'.
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 589, in
clause 307, page 264, line 43, at end insert
'from material likely to cause harm or disturbance'.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 522 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). We want to tease out an explanation of how the Government expect the standards code to work. In particular, we want to examine the protection of persons under the age of 18. As a way of ascertaining what is intended, the amendment proposes to insert the word ''appropriately''.
It is worth considering the concern expressed to us that some concepts of a code might fail to recognise different degrees of acceptable content according to age, and might result in attempts to introduce a system of absolute rule for those under or over 18. The reality, as our system of film classification acknowledged, is that different types of content are appropriate for different ages.
We recognise that certain things are appropriate for teenagers: although they are under 18, they are old enough to watch some things that may not be appropriate to very young children. The way in which we have historically tried to respect children's right not to be exposed to inappropriate content is by means of the 9 o'clock watershed. Certain programmes that are not so extreme that they need to be shown after the watershed should nevertheless be shown at an appropriate time in the evening so that very young children do not watch them.
How does the Minister envisage the standards code working? Can he assure us that when schedulers are assembling programming, they will have a degree of flexibility that enables them to take a sensible approach to what is appropriate at 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, rather than their having to treat programmes as either post-9 o'clock or pre-9 o'clock material? The latter approach would
devalue the schedule and would not reflect audiences' wishes.
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
Amendment No. 589 is similar in purpose to amendment No. 522, moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). This group of amendments is the first of several relating to Ofcom's standards code. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the clause is crucial, so it is important that we get it right.
It strikes the Opposition that a fundamental specificity is lacking from subsection (2)(a), which sets out the first of various objectives for Ofcom. Only half of the objective is set out—any definition of what persons under the age of 18 are to be protected from is left out. Paragraph (b) specifies that ensuring that
''material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime . . . is not included in television and radio services''
is an objective of the code. That is much clearer, as are the other objectives set out in subsection (2).
We want to tease out, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, the precise purpose of subsection (2)(a). I take the view that the 9 o'clock watershed is not a panacea, so I hope that the Minister's answer will not be simply that Ofcom's objective and duties will be satisfied if the 9 o'clock watershed is observed—which presupposes the existence of material to be broadcast after 9 o'clock that, were it broadcast before 9 o'clock, would be harmful or likely to disturb young people.
My more general point is that the Committee should understand clearly the purpose of the provision and that Ofcom should hold an accurate view of its duty. The wording that we have suggested might not be entirely to the Minister's liking—he might like to think about it. However, I am concerned about the prospect of a television or radio service broadcasting material that harms, or disturbs, or even traumatises a young person. Although the objective relates to persons under the age of 18, that might mean children aged six, seven or eight, who in many homes these days seem to have the opportunity to watch or listen to almost anything.
We want to help the Minister to establish the purpose of the provision, which I am sure all members of the Committee regard as a vital matter.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
The clause is perhaps one of the most hotly contested and controversial in the Bill. Many people feel very strongly about it. The purpose of our amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has explained, is to get the Minister to say more about how he envisages Ofcom's role in enforcing standards and dealing with questions of content that some people might find offensive and others might view as harmful. There has been much discussion of that issue over the years, as well as recently.
Society's view of what is acceptable has changed in the past 10 or 15 years. We need only consult previous debates on the issue. The Video Recordings Act 1984 was one of the first measures to attempt to deal with content that, at the time, was perceived to be wholly unacceptable. In particular, I remember that acres of
newsprint were devoted to two films—''I Spit On Your Grave'' and ''Driller Killer''. Both were felt to be so far beyond acceptable boundaries that legislation was required to ensure that they were banned. However, I found ''I Spit On Your Grave'' in WHSmith about two weeks ago. It is now classified with an 18 certificate and is freely available to all those who want to buy it. That is an indication that standards have changed. I have not seen it, but I am told that it is a very poor film. One of the dangers that we should recognise is that branding things as wholly unacceptable or offensive acts upon some people as an advertisement, prompting them to seek out those things. Sometimes it is more effective to say that a film is a load of rubbish that should be ignored.
Other films that are much more serious contributions to cinema have provoked equally fierce controversy. For a long time, it was not possible to obtain ''The Exorcist'' on video because it was felt to have a potentially very harmful effect, especially on young people. Although it was considered acceptable for such a film to be released in the cinema, it was not acceptable for it to be released on video. However, it has now been released on video, and although I think that it has never been screened on television, it is only a matter of time. I do not object to that, because ''The Exorcist'' is a serious film with some merit, but the development still shows a change in standards.
A recent ruling by the British Board of Film Classification is also relevant. Although the Bill does not deal with the cinema exhibition of films, every film shown in the cinema will turn up on television sooner or later, so what the BBFC decides about the regulation of films is bound to have a major influence on Ofcom and those responsible for deciding which warnings to attach to a film when it appears on television. The BBFC's recent decision to remove the 12 rating and replace it with a 12A rating made my life as the parent of a boy of nine who was desperate to see ''Spiderman'' much easier. I have subsequently taken my son to four or five 12A films, including the new ''Lord of the Rings'' film, ''Die Another Day'' and, of course, ''Spiderman''. It is a step forward by the BBFC to say that parents are capable of dealing with such questions.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
Following the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, which was similar to mine about there being gradations of acceptability, has he noticed that continental television uses a similar form of classification? Many continental television channels display symbols in the corner of the screen to indicate a 12, 15 or 18 rating. Does he find that idea attractive?
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
That is an interesting idea, which touches on the important issue of provision of information. Returning to the BBFC decision, it is up to parents to decide whether their children can see a 12A film, because the children cannot get into the cinema unless an adult accompanies them. However television is much harder to deal with, because it is not possible to enforce age limits for viewing in the way that a cinema can do.
Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)
I accept half of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, before it goes out on television, every film goes through a wholly separate process of review by the organisation broadcasting it and by Ofcom. Often in that process, large chunks of films are deleted. I presume that he expects that practice to continue.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is appropriate to apply a more rigorous approach to that which is shown on television—not just films; they are an easy example—than to that which is shown in cinemas. The same applies to videos, which carry the additional danger that they can be watched repeatedly, or certain scenes watched time and again, to more damaging effect. That was considered by the BBFC when it took on responsibility for the categorisation of videos.
It is easy to talk about the most extreme examples in terms of sexual content or violent content. However, I remember a discussion that I had with the late James Ferman, for whom I had a great regard. He was a liberal-minded man who pushed the boundaries in a sensible way, even though he occasionally attracted hostile comment from the Daily Mail. It was with sadness that I read of his death a few weeks ago.
One of Ferman's most controversial decisions was about ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'', which contains a scene in which the high priest tears out the heart of a sacrificial victim. He was concerned about the effect that the graphic portrayal of that event might have on a very young mind. He told me that he had a furious argument with Stephen Spielberg about it. Spielberg argued strongly that the scene was an important part of the film and that it should stay in, but Ferman's reply was, ''No. You will only get a PG certificate if you remove it,'' so Spielberg had had to take it out. Later, he came back to Ferman and said, ''You were right.''
The protection of children is much more important than the general question of the protection of society as a whole. That is why our amendment, which is to some extent a probing amendment, focuses on the role of Ofcom in such matters, and on the protection of those under 18. In the past few weeks, the issue has obviously become far more controversial. As society has accepted scenes of sexual or violent content that would not have been permissible five, 10 or 15 years ago, some of those who are involved in the criminal justice system have expressed concern. I draw attention to the remarks of Lord Warner, the chairman of the Youth Justice Board, who some two weeks ago said:
''It's very hard to escape the concern that violent videos, violent films, violent music, violent games do influence some of the more impressionable minds . . . I think there's a case for reviewing whether we should regulate more rigorously. There's certainly a coarsening of attitudes.''
Lord Warner is responsible for the Government's policy on youth crime, which is now a matter of huge concern. At the very least, we should take such warnings seriously.
The Minister himself has also expressed views about the issue. Given that he has commented already, I think that the Committee would welcome his saying a little more about how he thinks Ofcom will operate in that context. A few weeks ago, the Minister said:
''I watch my kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games. I don't think a child is going to turn out to be a killer or more violent as a consequence of playing those games . . . But it's the acceptance of that heartlessness that is at the centre of all those kinds of games''.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Minister on that issue, because he and I both have the difficult task—far harder than anything we ever do in this place—of bringing up young children. The problem is peer pressure: one says that a film on television or a game is rated 15, and they say, ''Well, all my friends watch it. Why should I be deprived?'' Sometimes I have cracked. I draw the line at 18, but, for 15, the choice is up to parents.
However, I worry about the long-term effects, and think that we should pause in our consideration of the Bill, because the issue is hugely important to many people, who are looking for some protection. I worked for Margaret Thatcher when the Broadcasting Standards Council was created to deal with that concern. Although Mary Whitehouse got a lot of brickbats, she fought a long campaign on the issue. In response to some of the concerns that she raised, the BSC was eventually established. I do not agree with a lot of what Mary Whitehouse said, but there is no doubt that a large number of people in the country are concerned, and have become increasingly so in the last few years. Those people will look to Ofcom to enforce standards.
I hope that Ofcom will adopt the same relatively liberal approach that the BSC adopted. I remember going with a delegation from the House to the BSC to see a demonstration of its work, in which we were shown a number of scenes that it had decided to cut. I was impressed by the debate that was had before taking a decision. It is very easy to cut something, but often harder to decide not to cut it. However, the BSC set out to protect the artistic integrity of the product, and cut only when it felt that that was absolutely necessary.
Although I do not always agree with the concerns raised, I think that organisations such as Mediawatch do a service in drawing our attention to concerns about the way in which more and more violent content is creeping on to our television screens. I think that the watershed is still a valuable concept. However, as technology improves and as the ability to schedule a time of the viewer's choosing rather than the programme maker's choosing increases, the watershed may become less important, and we need to look to other means.
I touched on the subject briefly earlier in our consideration of the Bill when we debated media literacy, because technological solutions or other devices can help protect children from harmful content. For instance, digital reception can require a code to be entered if material rated for over-18s is being shown, and I have my digital receiver programmer set so that before any classified material
is shown that is broadcast as being suitable for 18 year olds, a code has to be entered. That works well with children of seven or eight, but for children older than 10 the system will begin to break down. However, that sort of safeguard is an improvement, and technology may allow other safeguards. We need to educate parents about the fact that that facility is available.
At the end of the day, however, we must be concerned about what goes out on television. Mediawatch conducted a survey of films shown on terrestrial television in 2001, and it added up the number of scenes of violence, those with graphic sexual content and so on. The 200 films that it analysed included 987 scenes showing the use of firearms, 667 showing violent assault, 94 showing incidents of fire-raising and causing explosions, and 318 showing incidents that involved the use of knives. I realise that many of those programmes might be considered to be admirable works of art and that such instances might be considered to be an integral part of the plot. Indeed, in my view the list of films included some good films. For instance, ''Reservoir Dogs'' is an extremely violent film, but I think it is good for adults. Another is ''Dead Calm''.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am interested in teasing out the hon. Gentleman's views. He talks of violence. I, too, find the depiction of casual violence on television disturbing. Does he distinguish between sex and nudity and violence, on which one can take differing moral views? Does he share my concern that we in this country worry excessively about sex and nudity but are too relaxed about violence? Many of the movies on in the early evening show plenty of casual deaths: we do not control that aspect sufficiently.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly with the concern now being expressed about the effect on impressionable minds of graphic violence on television. Admittedly, only a small number are affected, but it could lead to criminal activity. The hon. Gentleman is right that violence is the most serious concern.
Although I have been talking about films, the Minister mentioned a television programme that he was particularly concerned about called ''Serious and Organised''. I watched it the other night because the Minister had mentioned it; it is a fairly typical commercial cops-and-robbers programme, but the Minister was right to say that it has a fairly high level of violence. It goes out just after 9 pm, but it is the gratuitous nature of some of the violent scenes that gives rise to most concern.
I have no problem with violent scenes that are clearly an important and integral part of the programme, but violence often seems to be thrown in for no good reason—other than the gratification of those who like that kind of thing—but there is a growing sense that we may have gone too far. I have always said to those who argue that there is too much violence or sex on television that the most effective censor is the off button. Indeed, switching channels or turning off the television is more effective than anything that Ofcom could do. In general, I am extremely reluctant to see more censorship, because I do not like censorship, as a matter of principle.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
I am listening to my hon. Friend with considerable interest. Does he not agree that Ofcom could provide a really valuable role in providing as much information as possible to viewers about the contents of a programme before it is transmitted? It is too easy to allow children to watch programmes that may be damaging or to prevent them from watching films, such as ''Trainspotting'', which raise important moral issues.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I agree with my hon. Friend. ''Trainspotting'' is a horrific film, but it is difficult to claim that it celebrates violence or that it glorifies drug taking, as some have sought to argue. Anyone who watches that film would be put off taking drugs for life. My hon. Friend's point is that the provision of information is the most important contribution that can be made, in that it empowers parents to take decisions about what is appropriate. Some sort of symbol, either before the programme or even on the screen throughout, might be a way of alerting viewers to a programme's contents, so that they do not unwittingly stumble across something that they find offensive. That would also inform parents, so that they could form a judgment about the programme. Most people would support such a measure, which would be relatively uncontroversial.
Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)
There is a danger of repeating the mistake made in the 1980s, when Channel 4 displayed a symbol before certain films. That only encouraged some people to come back from the pub to watch those films precisely because they were controversial, which defeated the objective for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
As I said earlier, there is a danger that one will advertise the contents of a programme to people who go out of their way to watch that sort of film. That would need to be considered, and I hope that Ofcom will carry out research into that. Opinion is divided. Ofcom's decisions must reflect what is currently acceptable in society. The BSC has carried out a lot of work in that area. They commission regular studies of what people feel strongly about or find offensive, whether that is bad language, sex and nudity or violence. As I have sought to indicate, society's attitudes to such things change fairly quickly, so it is important that Ofcom should continue to research public opinion. Given some of the concerns that have been expressed in recent weeks, often after especially horrific incidents, there is considerable public concern about the issue. This is an opportunity for the Minister to set out his view about the extent to which Ofcom should intervene in this area.
Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)
Several hon. Members have emphasised the significance of the clause. No one would disagree that how we regulate or censor the broadcast media is quintessential to the role that politicians should have, at arm's length, in the regulation of broadcasting. Few Members would not deprecate the culture of violence and aggression that is often perpetuated on television, in films and even on the radio. I sometimes wonder whether we need to take a longer look at the issue, rather than just looking at the situation today.
I went to the ''Aztecs'' exhibition two weeks ago, which was the most violent exhibition that I had ever seen. The portrayal of the sacrificial victim who has been flayed seems quite a pleasant image until one realises what it represents. There may be a degree of violence and aggression in every culture that we need to understand. It is difficult to know whether it is a question of chicken and egg.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that the way in which we judge violence depends on the context. Whether it is an exhibition on the Aztecs or a historical television programme, a news clip or a piece of drama about them, there is an important difference—one is gratuitous, the others are informative.
Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)
Indeed. When I lived in Peru in 1986, there was a news story about a man who had butchered six people. He turned out to be a police psychiatrist. The way in which the news media reported that story was far more gratuitously violent than any film I had seen in my life. They almost gloried in the gore. There was a debate in Peru, and in most of Latin American society, on how that kind of story should be portrayed. The assumption is that for the broadcasters not to show the whole truth—with all of its gore—would be some form of dictatorial censorship. Others were saying that if we glory in this, surely we are creating a culture in which violence is loved and valued.
That said, I do not think I would want to live in Midsomer, which seems to be the most violent place in the world. It is a small village, but there appears to be no one left standing. I do not know what constituency it is, but crime statistics must have gone through the roof. They all live in very nice houses, however. How many vicars are there in Midsomer? The vicars of Midsomer have been through nearly every sin in the book, and several that are not in it.
Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that taste and decency standards change rapidly. In the past 10 or 15 years, we have seen a more rapid change in taste and decency standards than in the past 100 years. I remember watching ''Men Behaving Badly'' on Christmas day or Boxing day a few years ago with some elderly in-laws. I was laughing my face off inside, but I was desperately hoping that the elderly relatives who were of a more conservative bent than myself would not understand the jokes. That would have been terribly embarrassing. There was a horrible moment when somebody said, ''Could somebody just explain that?''. I remember that that episode attracted quite a lot of criticism. Many people were offended. The timing was critical—it was shown at a time when many families would be watching TV together. The level of offence created was significantly higher than had the episode been shown at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock on a normal weekday.
I remember too that there were practically no complaints when ''Queer as Folk'' was first screened in the UK. What the programme was about and whom it was for had been extremely well signposted in advance. Moreover, as the programme started it was announced
that there would be disturbing scenes from the outset, which, of course, makes everybody stay up to see what will happen at the beginning.
''Tales of the City'', which was shown on Channel 4 four years prior to that, received remarkably few complaints in the UK. However, the level of protest in the United States at the programme was so great that people did not want to commission a second series. That distressed many people in the UK who had enjoyed the first one. Therefore I am pleased to see a broadly liberal approach as long as we make sure that timing and scheduling issues are well noted and that there is good signposting. This also applies to advertising. I wish there were a way that we could ensure that advertisements were not broadcast at a louder volume than the programme they follow. When you are gently somnolent in front of the television, the advertisements will frighten you out of the room to make tea.
The clause is sufficiently well drafted to deliver all those outcomes. In particular, it will allow Ofcom the versatility to change over time. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford refers to the work of the BSC, and I hope that Ofcom will adopt much of its modus operandi. The serious debate and intellectual rigour that the BSC has brought to news programming, films, comedy and satire have been very impressive and have made most Britons feel that the broadcasting ecology in Britain is not too far beyond the kind of world that they would like to see on television. I have a tiny question for the Minister on religious broadcasting. Clause 307(2)(e) states:
''that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes''
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving on to religious broadcasting, which we will come to later; we are discussing children now.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I thank members of the Committee for an interesting debate. When the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was citing some of the movies that he has seen, I was trying to think of when I sensed a change in what was acceptable in film portrayal of in-your-face violence. I have always been a movie buff, and I sensed that it was in ''The Wild Bunch'' by Sam Peckinpah at the end of the 1960s that attitudes started to change. I remember the impact that ''Straw Dogs'' had with its violence and explicit rape. It is a very difficult question. As a kid I was brought up—like others in the Committee who are almost as old as I am—on cowboy films and reruns of Jimmy Cagney movies. There can be few scenes more violent than Jimmy Cagney standing on top of a gas tank telling his mother that he was on top of the world before blowing himself to pieces. We watched a great many war movies as well. I had a fascinating discussion on Saturday about ''The Dambusters'' and its portrayal of what happened; the fact that 30,000 Ukrainian slave labourers died was conveniently ignored. The figure might have been 3,000; it was a lot of people anyway.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Exactly. I remember what ''The Dambusters'' looked like and the incredibly powerful music. It was a great post-war move that put the heroism back into an experience that people were trying to put behind them.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
Does the Minister not agree that films such as ''Saving Private Ryan'' and ''Stalingrad'', which attempted to show the realities of war more vividly, have also served a purpose?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Yes. I was about to say that. I find it difficult to understand where—or whether—a line should be drawn. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam pointed out that successive Governments have attempted to do that by endorsing the nine o'clock watershed, but even that has moved around. The first time that I saw ''Saving Private Ryan'', I came out of the cinema in a state of shock, wanting my kids to see it so that they would understand that we should never allow such a situation to happen; we have a duty to ensure that young boys are not blown to pieces. Then, I started to think that it was a bit obscene—there was a kind of glorying in the reality. That brings us back to the form and content argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, go and take a look at the ''Aztecs'' exhibition. I came out of that thinking that the Spanish had done us all a big favour; it must have been the cruellest regime ever. However, it does not compare with the Nazis. Those are difficult arguments.
The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford talked about the sterling work that has been done by the British Board of Film Classification. I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda listed some of its virtues. When I went there, having seen the huge lists of the masses of films, television programmes and advertisements that the censors have to watch, I said rather flippantly that when it came to the identical porno movies, it must be great to have a fast-forward button on the remote control. They did not laugh. They looked very seriously at me and said that they did not fast forward anything; every frame was important. It is a matter of freedom of expression and the liberty of individuals to access and watch the images that they want to see. That is a central issue. I do not believe in censorship but, by God, I am very worried about the pornography and violence that is around and I am glad that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford quoted Lord Warner. I realised when he did so that I have been misquoting him, because he mentioned the ''coarsening of attitudes'', whereas I had been talking about the coarsening of our sensibilities. The issue is wider than just attitudes, it is about sensibilities and about what we expect.
I suspect that the difference between the gangster movies that starred Jimmy Cagney and ''The Wild Bunch'' and what came after it is that formerly an enormous amount was left to the imagination. We leave very little to the imagination now, and exploit the sense of prurience or inquiry that is in all of us to know what the inside of a human body looks like. People are making a lot of money out of live so-called art shows, and from Channel 4 television programmes of those autopsies.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
Was not the film ''Sleepers'' far more worrying in imagining what happened in a homosexual rave in a boys' home in upstate New York than it would have been had it vividly shown it?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I agree—although I have not seen ''Sleepers''—because I suspect that the films that have remained with me for the longest have been those that disturbed me or extended my imagination and made me think about such things.
Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)
My hon. Friend advances an interesting argument. It takes us to the edge of how the Greeks thought about depicting violence—it all happened off stage, which could make it seem far more violent. Sometimes the BBC faces difficult moments. For instance, possibly the most violent piece of literature in Britain is ''Titus Andronicus'', in which a character has his children served to him in a pie. The BBC had to decide at what time of day to show it.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Yes, and I can think of many others—for instance, the fairy tales of the Grimm brothers are pretty grim, yet most of us have read those stories to young children and seen for ourselves the attraction that they have. I would be the last person to say that we should not read those stories or try to portray such things differently. It is a difficult problem, but we must not hide it away. It must be publicly debated.
It has never in any century been easy for any Government or regime to lay down the law on censorship and to say what we should and should not watch. God forbid that politicians should meddle in the subject, but it should be debated none the less. It should not lie in the hands of a tiny elite, whether a self-styled creative elite, or radio philosophers, or—heaven forbid—newspaper columnists, to decide what is and what is not good for us.
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I have been listening to the Minister's thoughtful contribution, but is it not up to politicians to stand back and—as he did with his children's blood-spattered videos, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred—make the connection between what is now being explicitly portrayed on television and in film and the behaviour of young people, particularly on the streets?
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Certainly we should discuss it. What worries me about the way events have moved in recent years is that we do not talk enough about the problem. It seems that it is not hip to talk about it—that it is a generational thing, and suits should not determine what young children watch. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford reminded us that there are ways to stop some of the material being seen, especially by very young children, but I have to tell him that my children, who are now teenagers, put locks on the computer to stop me seeing what they watch, because I occasionally stumble on some of their programmes.
The purpose of the amendments is clear: that Ofcom's codes should expressly provide for the protection of children and young people. That is an important responsibility—indeed, it is one of the most
important placed on the regulator—and it goes without saying that the protection provided must be appropriate. Although amendment No. 522 was properly tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, it calls into question other provisions in the Bill under which Ofcom could be expected to act appropriately without express provision to that effect. Furthermore, I am not sure what ''appropriately'' would add to the list of considerations to which Ofcom must have regard under subsection (4). I hope that hon. Members will remember that subsection.
Amendment No. 589 addresses the important question of what those under 18 are to be protected from. We considered that question long and hard, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. However, we concluded that in the context of Ofcom's responsibilities for standards in the broadcast media, it would not be difficult for Ofcom to answer that general question.
Once one starts to try to identify a comprehensive list, no matter how long it becomes, the risk remains that it will still omit certain mischiefs—for instance, some things to which children and young people should not be exposed would not necessarily pass the test of provable harm or disturbance. Indeed, is it necessarily harmful that children are bamboozled and their natural credulity exploited? I do not think that all such mischiefs would necessarily meet the test expressed in the amendment.
The detailed interpretation of the objective should be left to Ofcom, as that is the more secure route to achieving the policy objective. However, I agree entirely with hon. Members who contributed to the debate that we need an ongoing public dialogue about such questions.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I do not entirely agree about the Spanish doing the Aztecs a favour. We brought in a raft of diseases that killed millions, but the Aztecs repaid us with syphilis, so there was some equity—[Interruption.] Not us personally, but Europeans.
Some important points have been made about where the BSC has been and where Ofcom needs to be. The answer is somewhere in the middle, although that is a curious position. Some constituents have expressed their concerns about material that is inappropriate for children, whereas other people want a more liberal regime. It is right that Ofcom should aim to represent the mean, although that is a difficult position for Ofcom to take up because it will be open to criticism from everyone.
It is essential to provide information to parents. My general view is that parents, not the state, should decide what children watch. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon has reminded me that the graphic used to show the category of a programme is called a dog—a digital onscreen graphic. Dogs have an important role to play in many countries.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I forgot to comment on that. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford acknowledged that we should think about the idea, which I endorse, with one proviso. I find extraneous images on the screen intensely irritating. If one is
watching a great movie—Sam Peckinpah's ''Cross of Iron'' is a great movie, although I did not much like ''The Wild Bunch'' and hated ''Straw Dogs'', both of which Peckinpah also directed—a symbol on the screen gets in the way.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I sympathise with the Minister because I, too, find it distracting. The general point about providing information is helpful, however. Sky should be congratulated on the fact that its electronic programming guide includes much classification information.
Violence figured largely in the debate. I have been turning off James Bond-type films recently. I think it has something to do with the juxtaposition of such films with news articles about the potential war. It has become offensive to watch a film that contains casual violence—it has stopped being funny. Context is important. I accept that violence is not always gratuitous when it is used in movies—indeed, it can be an essential part of a movie or television programme—and that it can be gratuitous in a news context.
The Minister said that the word ''appropriate'' should not be used in the provision because it would then have to be used everywhere in the Bill, but that it is implied. We shall think about that, although there is still a need to define the clause's provisions better, because, as the Conservative spokesman said, we need to know what we are protecting our children from. There is another side to that argument, which is about protecting them from blandness. It is possible to make television so sanitised that it becomes completely pointless and everyone will buy videos. However, on this occasion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 205, in
clause 307, page 265, line 14, leave out 'unsuitable' and insert 'misleading or offensive'.
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 206, in
clause 307, page 265, line 16, leave out 'unsuitable' and insert 'misleading or offensive'.
We have had a wide and interesting debate on the first group of amendments, but we must bear in mind the relevance of our debate to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 205 and 206, which relate to advertising, are fairly narrow.
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
I was about to say that after the programmes, the films and the videos, we now have a short advertising break.
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
I think that this one is sponsored by the Advertising Association.
The amendments would remove the word ''unsuitable'' from the definition of advertising in television and radio services that is to be prohibited and replace it with ''misleading or offensive''. It has been suggested to us that ''unsuitable'' is an insufficiently precise word for the regulation of radio
and television advertising. It is unclear and has no basis in law, unlike ''misleading'', which does. There is also the danger that ''unsuitable'' will be all-embracing. The amendments confer the benefit of clarity and regulatory certainty: one knows what they mean. The definition of ''misleading'' is derived from the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, which implemented the Council directive on misleading advertisements.
The amendments also reflect the principles of current advertising codes. The rules in the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority codes on advertising and sponsorship are generally derived from an intention to prevent misleading, offensive or harmful advertising, although we have not included ''harmful'' in our proposed definition. If the amendments appeal to the Minister, he might want to come back with his own that include that word. Those principles do not seem so far to have hindered the regulator's power to regulate advertising of various advertised product categories and there is no reason why there should be a problem with product categories that cannot be advertised at the moment, but for which advertising might be possible in future. I hope that my argument is clear. To summarise, why is a definition being included in Ofcom's standards code that is different to the one that the industry generally is used to and those who advertise are familiar with?
I shall resist the temptation to respond to the comment from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about blandness by suggesting that the adverts are often the best part of any hour of programming that one watches on ITV. My particular favourite—I cannot remember the product, but I shall get it next time, as I am sure I shall see the advertisement again—is the one in which a couple are in their living room, she says, ''Will you let the dog out?'' and the dog is seen jumping up at the window. Then one sees from outside that they are on the fourth floor of a block of flats. If hon. Members have not seen it, I assure them that it is very funny.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
The amendments would narrow two of Ofcom's standards objectives. As currently drafted, those objectives provide an obligation on Ofcom to prevent unsuitable advertising in television and radio services and unsuitable sponsorship of television and radio services. They are aimed at maintaining the current scope of protection. The Broadcasting Act 1990 currently gives the ITC wide-ranging powers to deal with advertising and sponsorship content, and we would not want to introduce anything in the Bill that would limit that unnecessarily. There is a danger that narrowing the objectives to prevent only the inclusion of advertising or sponsorship considered to be misleading or offensive could skew the operation of the relevant EC directive. I shall try to explain to the hon. Member for Ryedale why that is.
Articles 10 to 20 of the television without frontiers directive require the application of certain standards restricting the content of advertising and sponsorship. Some of the standards that that directive imposes would fall outside simply restricting advertising or sponsorship that was defined as misleading or
offensive. For example, there is a requirement to prohibit TV advertising of tobacco products and a related prohibition of sponsorship of TV programmes by someone whose principal activity is the manufacturing or sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products. Such advertising would be unsuitable, for no other reason than that it would be incompatible with the directive and must therefore be prohibited under Ofcom's code. That would be consistent with Ofcom's requirement under clause 307 to take account of international obligations when setting standards under the code.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ryedale will agree with me that, regardless of the directive's requirements, tobacco is a good example of a product that we do not ant to advertise. If one narrows the objective to exclude adverts that are misleading or offensive, how do we protect against advertising products that, like tobacco, are harmful to health? They would not be misleading or offensive, but they would be harmful to health.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Not that I know of. However, if, between now and the end of the sitting, the hon. Gentleman can tell me that other legislation bans them, I shall acknowledge that.
''Unsuitable'' means anything that is undesirable can be excluded. Why narrow the provision? We want to ensure that we have wide powers to ban all undesirable products.
Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)
I am a little concerned by what the Minister says. I shall give an example of a product that was deemed ''unsuitable'' for advertising until fairly recently, yet is essential for 51 per cent. of the population. I am, of course, referring to tampons. Surely that shows why we must be careful not to give Ofcom too many powers to define ''unsuitable'', lest we rule out products that are perfectly acceptable and necessary.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point—we do have to be careful. On the other hand, he will acknowledge that if we narrow the wording too far, we start to exclude from the provisions services and products such as tobacco, which, in my view, poses a threat to people of all ages, especially young people. There are other areas of advertising in which the test of advertising suitability being misleading or offensive, or even harmful, would not be adequate, for example, the advertising of prescription medicines.
I do not want to run the risk of standards failing to be upheld because certain types of advertising fall between the gaps in the legislation's wording. The chosen word, ''unsuitable'', is sufficiently wide to prevent that, so I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
I am sure that those who are affected by this issue will have the opportunity to read and consider the Minister's remarks. If I
understand him correctly, in deciding to use ''unsuitable'', the Government have sought a wide definition. It was not our intention to narrow the provision in any way, but it was a good point to raise. With one or two more advertising breaks coming up shortly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 604, in
clause 307, page 265, line 23, at end insert—
'(k) that special regard is given to the unique status of the National Lottery and licensed lotteries.'.
Mr Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 605, in
clause 307, page 266, line 10, at end insert—
'(6A) Standards set to secure the standards objective specified in subsection 2(k) shall, in particular, contain provisions designed to ensure that nothing shall directly or indirectly prevent, limit or restrict programme service providers from including in programmes material which—
(a) informs viewers and listeners of the benefits to the public from the National Lottery;
(b) informs viewers and listeners about the National Lottery and the features of licensed lotteries;
(c) educates viewers and listeners on how to participate in licensed lotteries;
(d) promotes the National Lottery and licensed lotteries.
(6B) In this section and section 312 ''National Lottery'' shall be as defined in section 1 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and ''licensed lotteries'' means those lotteries licensed by the National Lottery Commission pursuant to section 6 of that Act.'.
Amendment No.606, in
clause 312, page 269, line 40, after 'sponsorship', insert—
'(bb) the National Lottery Commission about so much of the draft code as relates to or could affect the National Lottery or licensed lotteries;'.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I apologise to the Committee for having missed the earlier interesting debates. I look forward to reading them.
We have moved on to the lottery show. Clause 307, in its application of Ofcom's standards codes, in effect recreates—but gives us the opportunity to consider afresh—the structure of, in particular, the ITC codes of programming and the standards codes. The context of the debate is provided by the fact that the national lottery has a unique status. It is run by a commercial organisation, but one that operates for a public purpose. Committee members will be only too familiar with the benefits that flow from the national lottery, but I imagine that they are equally familiar with the relative difficulties that it has recently encountered.
There are inherent difficulties in trying to sustain the take-up of a national lottery programme. Innovation is the necessary response to stimulate the interest of those who play the game and contribute to good causes. The future success of the lottery depends on its ability to innovate. The reason why we have a standards code is because the broadcast media—in particular, television—are an immensely powerful means of communication and can have dramatic effects. In its early years, the national lottery
prospered by virtue of its presence on the BBC through the national lottery show.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the argument, often presented by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others, that Britain seems to be unique in that the show to which my hon. Friend referred is not paid for by the lottery in question, but is put on free?
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I understand that to be the case, but I am unsure what conclusion my hon. Friend wants me to draw from that. To put on a show of that sort is consistent with the BBC's wider purposes.
The question is in what ways the lottery can develop. Past experience in this country and overseas demonstrates that if the lottery is to maximise its contribution to good causes in the long term, some innovation will be required in its ability to promote the lottery through television. Certain constraints on its ability to do that arise from the BBC's sponsorship and advertising code. For example, trailers on the BBC that mention the lottery are regarded as advertising. In addition, because of the restrictions on sponsorship on ITV, even an effort to broadcast the national lottery show on ITV in the same form as it appears on the BBC would fall prey to the sponsorship and advertising code.
It is important to consider how the lottery might develop. The lottery might want to develop the nature of games beyond those that appear on the existing show. It might be desirable to the national lottery to
consider having a presence on ITV rather than on the BBC, or having a complementary presence on ITV on a different day of the week. Much as I have my worries about scratchcards and the ability under gaming policy to chase losses, it might be an advantage in the context of the lottery to be able to introduce a scratchcard game, related to a lottery show, with winners in the studio, so that viewers could watch the experience of winning. Such entertainments could enable the lottery to capture an additional audience, and thereby additional money for good causes.
The amendments would enable the standards codes to reflect the unique character of the lottery. The hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and for North Devon and I have come together to table amendment No. 605 to try to secure the Government's acceptance of the amendments. If the amendment were accepted, the programming material set out in the amendment that informs viewers about the national lottery, educates them and promotes the national lottery and licensed lotteries, would be reflected in the legislation as material that will not be precluded by programming or standards codes. I hope that the Government will accept it.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.