ACT TO APPLY TO TELEVISION AND SOUND BROADCASTING

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6 at end insert:

'Provided that nothing in Section 1 shall be construed as affecting the responsibilities of the Governors of the BBC, or the duties of the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Act 1981 or of the cable authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984'. I would never dream of questioning in any way either the decisions of the House or the decisions that are taken by you, Mr. Speaker, on its behalf. You are a remarkable Speaker, by whom the House is extremely well served. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) illustrates some of the difficulties that we faced during the passage of the Bill.

When the Bill first came before the House I believed that there would be a fairly balanced examination, not just of the implications of changing the law to put extra restrictions on the broadcasting of material or on the display of indecent magazines, but at least, in a fairly responsible way, of the problems that any legislature faces when it is legislating for a society that changes its measure of moral interpretation over the years and which alters its attitude. In legislating, we must remain both reasonable and acceptable to the great bulk of the people.

569 The Bill has not been conceived or examined in that light or in that manner. From the beginning we have seen a demonstration of a number of strongly held prejudices. We have heard from many hon. Members that the need to take action on certain services such as broadcasting arose because of great abuses and out of the difficulties that are faced day by day by ordinary families seeking to protect themselves, and especially their children, from obscene material. If that is so, there is a great responsibility on the House to produce evidence and not just to say, "I am offended by some of the things I see and I would not want my children to see them."

We need to produce hard, detailed evidence and such evidence has been sadly lacking, especially in relation to the broadcasting authorities, from the time that we started to look at this legislation. We have had demonstrations of items to which hon. Members have objected, but there is always a danger in Members waxing eloquently and indignantly about broadcasting. To start with, very few hon. Members see much television. If we asked hon. Members how many hours of broadcasting or even narrowcasting they saw in a month, they would find great difficulty in demonstrating that they had seen anything like one hundredth of the material that is normally seen by our constituents.

§ Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesham)

The hon. Lady speaks about the difficulty hon. Members have in seeing much television. Because of the hours that we work, that is right, but is there not the other difficulty exhibited in the Bill that all we have seen are the two main offenders in the eyes of the supporters of this Bill—the worst extracts of two films that went out at midnight on Channel 4?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point, and it underlines what worries me. On Second Reading we heard constantly about two programmes and some hon. Members have since watched extracts from them. I certainly did not see the whole of one film because I was bored by it and turned it off. Before we change legislation that covers our broadcasting authorities, we have to be sure not only that we have a reason to do so, but that we can demonstrate that those broadcasting authorities are not fulfilling their duties and are not carrying out the tasks set for them after considerable care and examination by the House. We have arrived at this point in Third Reading without that ever having been demonstrated.

We had a most interesting and unique Committee stage and we went forwards and backwards putting little changes into the Bill. As a result, the Bill that we are now debating bears little resemblance to the one that we debated on Second Reading. It is the function of the House to change legislation for the better, but to change the inadequate for the inadequate is extraordinary. The amendment seeks to make it clear that we will look at the existing legislation and accept that both the BBC and the IBA have their duties clearly laid out in existing legislation. So far, we have not demonstrated that those authorities are not doing the job that they are meant to do. That is the most important point.

This may be the moment for me to say somehing about matters that have worried me for some time. There is a concerted attempt on the part of a quite small pressure 570 lobby to change a great deal of the legislation on the basis of that lobby's prejudices. That is quite legitimate and I have no objection to it, as long as the House is perfectly well aware of the fact that it is being pressured. I often ask myself if we are not changing the whole climate in which we examine broadcast material. I am not at all sure who the members of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association are, but I am sure that they are all upstanding and noble people. Whoever they are, they have been behind a concerted attempt through this legislation to change the attitude of the House towards the broadcasting authorities.[Interruption.] I am happy to have that confirmed by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, but they cannot demonstrate that the broadcasting authorities are not doing what they are supposed to do.

Where is the evidence of inadequate broadcasting control? We have gone through the whole Committee stage and I have seen no such evidence. Where are the names? In Committee I asked for hard evidence of these great obscenities eternally pumped out by both broadcasting authorities, and I was handed a most bizarre and amusing list containing adjectives that are common on most shop floors in Britain. The temptation to read it into the record was quite strong, but I resisted that temptation because it is about time that the House grew up in its attitude to important control. We are not here to write on to the statute book our own moral hang-ups; we are here to frame legislation that is sensible and balanced.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will the hon. Lady accept that in an article written by Michael Winner he says: Few doubted that Channel 4's screening of 'Sebastiane' was an error. He says exactly the opposite of the hon. Lady.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I have the honour to know Mr. Michael Winner extremely well.

§ Mr. Brinton

Not too well.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I know him very well. One of my few criticisms of him is that he is a Conservative, but he will grow out of that eventually. I am pleased that he has been quoted, because "Sebastiane" was the only film, apart from "Jubilee", that was quoted throughout the passage of the Bill. It was shown very late at night and it illustrates the point I am making. We are proposing to change the entire responsibilities of the broadcasting authorities because two films upset some Members of Parliament.

I am talking about something that is very important. Broadcasting authorities that fulfil their duties must be prepared to produce guidelines that they stick to and that grade material throughout a 24-hour period. After all, we are often talking about more than 18 hours of broadcasting per day. The authorities must try to programme so that the majority of people can enjoy the material. But today we seem to be saying that, no matter what time of the day or night the material is broadcast, it must be acceptable to children, because some children are up at midnight or even after that. On that basis, it does not matter what sort of material adults wish to see, as long as there is any possibility that one inadequate parent allows his child to stay up later than is normal for children. Apparently, if that happens we must change the law to protect that child. That is an exceedingly odd argument.

571 The other argument used by Conservative Members is that one need not even be present if a video recorder is used, and so long as the material broadcast is capable of being recorded and played back, it must conform with a viewing association's view of what constitutes adult material. That is extraordinary and very disquieting. It represents direct censorship of any material other than that which is suitable for showing to a small child.

§ Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)

rose—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I give way to our own Jack in the box.

§ Mr. Hayes

I find myself in the embarrassing position of entirely agreeing with what the hon. Lady says—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Sit down; I can't bear it.

§ Mr. Hayes

I am sure that I will eventually grow out of it. But the position is even worse than the hon. Lady has described. Although the Bill was introduced with the best of intentions, it has tried to solve the problem by invoking one of the worst pieces of legislation to be on the statute book. That legislation is wholly discredited and unworkable and is universally accepted as such. I refer to the Obscene Publications Act.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I might have got a round to that point, if the hon. Gentleman had given me the opportunity to do so. But it is important to consider how the IBA and the BBC operate. I do not have the greatest admiration for the judgment of journalists. Indeed, I believe it to be sadly lacking on most important issues. However, before we change the law, we should be clear about what happens now. I shall tell hon. Members what the IBA says, because unlike the BBC, it has gone to great trouble to ensure that we have a clear statement of its viewing policy. The IBA's statement is quite helpful, because it says things that amount to self-censorship being operated before the material is broadcast.

It is the IBA's aim not to broadcast material that is unsuitable for children at times when large numbers of children are viewing. The full text of the IBA's viewing policy, which forms part of the guidelines, makes it clear that the IBA believes that family viewing policy means that programmes are scheduled carefully throughout the evening to take account of the changing proportion of children and adult viewers and the responsibilities that parents should exercise as the evening progresses. The IBA also points out that that policy would be seriously prejudiced by the Bill.

If the Bill was enacted, all programmes would have to be suitable for children, as it makes no distinction between viewing at different times of the day or night. The IBA points out that it is required to make value judgments at every level. If programmes go out for 18 hours a day, some programmes will obviously anger individual hon. Members. The sort of objections that I might make would probably be quite different from the objections of others hon. Members, who seem more concerned about sex.

In am most concerned about violence and the constant conditioning that goes on. Some Conservative Members seems to find that perfectly acceptable, because the violence is shown in a sanitised American way that gives the impression that people can be thrown around the screen, that cars can be driven 18 times through any crash and that automatic weapons can be used with the victims being able to get up and walk away. As a good trade 572 unionist I might see some reason for producing constant work for stuntmen, but that would be the only justification for many of those television programmes.

§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Does not my hon. Friend's point go even further than that? Sometimes the portrayal of violence in an extremely shocking and revolting way, such as occurred—here I do not disagree with Conservative Members—in parts of "Jubilee" can sometimes have a far less damaging effect on those watching just because it produces revulsion, than the sanitised violence to which she has referred.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Hon. Members talk about violence, but not about the programmes that go out week after week that somehow give the impression that it is all right to knock someone six foot in the air and for him to break a bone.

§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that the hon. Lady has just expressed. But what steps does she believe should be taken, as clearly present arrangements are not working very well?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The broadcasting authorities have guidelines. The IBA clearly sets out what is regarded as an offence to good taste and decency, and what is regarded as a portrayal of violence. But how often have Conservative Members objected to programmes such as "The A-Team" which come out every week? How often do they bother to sit down to write to the directors of the various companies saying that the implications of a programme are extraordinarily violent and amoral, because they suggest to young people that certain things are acceptable as long as the stuntman eventually gets up without any blood being split or obvious damage?

Such programmes are deadening. They alienate people over a long period of time, then they become the norm, and people think that that is really what happens. If we change the legislation in this way, that will not be affected—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members agree with me, they should tell me why they are seeking to change the law in such an inadequate way.

§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

Will the hon. Lady answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)? She says that programmes such as "The A-Team" become acceptable. That is our argument in favour of the Bill. What does she think should be done?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

With the greatest respect, that is not the hon. Gentleman's argument for the Bill. There was never any suggestion that the Bill was aimed at such programmes. When we asked what he intended to do about the constant drip drip of violence, we were told that that was acceptable, because it was, in effect, sanitised. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for, Ladywood has had to table amendments to the Bill because she feels that it has created a moral ambience that exploits women or that produces an atmosphere in which females are somehow only part of the sex fantasies of middle-aged men.

§ Mr. Chris Smith

In response to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), will not my hon. Friend say that the extension of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to cover radio broadcasting and television will not do anything to meet the problem caused by the constant drip, drip of 573 violence witnessed in "The A-Team" and other programmes? There is no way in which one could say that such programmes tend to deprave and corrupt those watching them, within the terms of the law as it is understood.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

My hon. Friend has described the real position. Some of us remember the absurdity of the trials under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the numbers of people who were called as experts, the extreme cost and length of the trials which took place—only to prove, in the final analysis, that human beings are much more difficult to corrupt by sex than we had ever thought.

It is clear from the IBA code exactly what matters the authority considers to be important. There is a whole section, for example, on presentation and the young and vulnerable which I believe is very sensible. It is important that we should allow the IBA to exercise its role in a responsible and adequate manner.

10 am

The BBC has similar controls imposed upon it. If there is consistent evidence of failure on the part of those authorities, individual Members should be bringing those matters to the authorities' attention all the time.

§ Ms. Clare Short

rose—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Hon. Members should not come to the House claiming that individual films are offensive and that therefore we must change the way the authorities operate.

§ Ms. Short

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no problem about obscene sexual material appearing on television. I did not see the two films which so upset Conservative Members. However, I believe that the drip, drip of sanitised violence makes that violence normal and shapes children's thinking and attitudes to violence. Can we not deal with that problem by considering the guidelines, and should we not consider amending them to require the BBC and the IBA to minimise the number of programmes showing repetitive and sanitised violence? Should we not be seeking that reform?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

There are a number of ways in which we could bring pressure to bear on the broadcasting authorities. It is perfectly possible to do that and I believe that there is already a great deal of self-censorship not only on sex and violence but also, I am sorry to say, about politics. There have been occasions during the past three years when the evidence has shown that the broadcasting authorities, faced with a programme which they believe might be politically sensitive, imposed self-censorship. Often it was only the reaction of the workers within the organisations which caused the material to be shown.

We do not need to change the law; we simply need to change the way in which we proceed. That is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was making very clearly.

§ Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (Surrey, South-West)

Would the hon. Lady apprecciate that the drip, drip aspect of violence is not disputed but that many people are absolutely fed up with pious thoughts and no action? The measures suggested in the Bill are a way for those who are in despair over inaction in the face of pious thoughts, to have recourse to action themselves.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The difficulty about that argument is that we should not deal with futility by doing something that is even more futile. That would happen under the Bill as it stands. Frankly, that has been my objection to this nonsense from the beginning.

I care about children and pornography. The suggestion that somehow or other we should produce a Bill with a grandiose sounding title and put it on to the statute book, is not sufficient. Some people would run a coach and horses through the legislation, and it may be so badly drafted that any lawyer worth his salt could get away with anything he wants. It must be wrong, in the face of that, for an hon. Member to return to his constituency party, self-satisfied and happy on a Friday and say, "I have personally helped with the passage of a new Bill onto the statute book." The fact that that Bill is even more stupid than the previous Bill, does not say much for the intelligence of the House of Commons.

§ Mrs. Bottomley

Is that not preferable to returning to one's constituency party and saying, "I have personally prevented the Bill from reaching the statute book?"

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

It is a matter of attitude. I think that my constituents send me to the House to frame good, workable and intelligent legislation. If they only send me here in order to make speeches which satisfy my ego, I do not know why I am here. I could go and wait in my bathroom or lavatory and do something more constructive.

We must make that distinction. We must realise that those who support gesture politics stand a real risk of the rest of the House saying that that is what it is—simply a gesture.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but, we must get back to the amendment. We should be dealing with the responsibilities of the governors.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a terrible temptation to answer points raised by one's opposite numbers which causes me to stray from the issue under consideration.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 will in no way improve or cover the responsibilities of the IBA or the BBC. There are existing powers which ensure that the material that is broadcast can be monitored. I do not believe in control and I believe that the Houses of Parliament get into difficulty when they try to monitor every programme that is broadcast. Many of us remember the 1930s and 1940s and what happens when the State seeks to control the minds and thoughts of people who are responsible for broadcasting material.

The authorities must be given clear guidelines—and they already have those. They must be told that the guidelines state their responsibilities, and they must be allowed to behave in a way which demonstrates that they understand their responsibilities. Simply quoting two films from the many hundreds of hours of broadcasting does not demonstrate that either of the broadcasting authorities are failing in their duties. That is what horrifies me about the Bill. We have had a discussion redolent of that kind of prejudice without any real evidence or facts.

The least that we can do is accept the amendment. If we do not accept the amendment, if it is not properly drafted in some way, we should make it clear that the IBA and the BBC at present have adequate machinery to 575 organise their affairs so that they are not offensive to the bulk of the people and to ensure that they can operate without always fearing prosecution by any particular bigot. Perhaps it was unkind of me to say "bigot", although the world is full of eccentrics who see obscenity where ordinary people do not. People with real psychiatric problems should not have the opportunity to prosecute the IBA and the BBC on the basis of something that they thought they saw late at night on a programme.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)

I am following the hon. Lady's comments with interest and I believe that she is making an important point. The obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1981 upon the IBA and the governors of the BBC are much tighter than the requirements of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. As the hon. Lady said, it is therefore very important to reassert that those Acts continue to apply. I would like to reassure her that nothing in the Bill, if it is enacted without the hon. Lady's amendment, will in any sense affect the obligations of the IBA and the governors of the BBC to apply a much stricter code than anything that is contained in the 1959 Act.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I am happy to have that reassurance. However, can the Minister also assure me that individual pressure groups will not be able to take action against the broadcasting authorities without proper evidence, by using the Obscene Publications Act? If that happens we will open the door to an extraordinary series of long litigations which will not improve or clarify the existing position but will muddy the waters to such an extent that people will not know what is acceptable and what is not.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)

rose—

§ Mr. Mellor

I am sure that my hon. Friend was probably about to make the same point as me, as he is a lawyer. The hon. Lady has again raised an important point about bringing prosecutions; that matter will have to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

We can be comforted by the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions, judging by the speed with which he acted in certain cases in the National Health Service, hardly rushes to respond to pressures. However, hope that that will be sufficient for us.

I believe that the amendment would help, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it.

I have sat through the passage of the Bill and I am still not clear what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) when he brought it forward. The flexibility which he has shown in removing and reinstating clauses has made it clear that we are debating a different Bill now from the one which was before the House on Second Reading. The Bill as it stands has a different import from the original measure. At the end of the day it would be absurd if all that came out of our many hours of examination of the matters pertaining to the Bill was a change in the way that the broadcasting authorities operate which would put them more at risk and would not overcome the real problems that have been debated by some of the more sensible Conservative Members.

If the House passes the Bill in its existing form, we will be into gesture politics with a vengeance. There has been no clear examination of the real difficulties surrounding the portrayal of violence on television. No real effort has been made to ascertain how the Bill will improve and 576 protect children. In debating this mish-mash of nonsense we are giving it weight, responsibility and seriousness that it does not deserve. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, because it will make it clear that we are not inadvertently making major changes without endeavouring to make them responsible and sensible.

§ Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

First, I express my gratitude to the members of Standing Committee C for their helpful and constructive approach to the Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill has emerged from Committee significantly improved and I wish to acknowledge that fact. The Bill will fulfil the twin objectives with which I set out, which were to remove the specific exemption that applies uniquely to broadcasting, including television, from the provisions of the 1981 Act, and to make the more explicit sex magazines less accessible to children and young persons.

This is a modest Bill and I make no extravagant claims for what it would achieve. If enacted, I believe that it would help to protect children at an emotionally vulnerable age. I thank the members of the public who have written in their hundreds, with 9:1 in support of the Bill.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

How many?

§ Mr. Churchill

I have received nearly 1,000 letters of support.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received that number of letters. Perhaps he will tell us how many he received on the Shops Bill? Many of us received nearly 1,000 letters both for and against that Bill.

§ Mr. Churchill

I received about 50 letters on the Shops Bill.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

rose—

§ Mr. Churchill

If the hon. Lady would forgive me—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

No, I would not.

§ Ms. Clare Short

The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) may be interested when I tell him that I have received 3,452 letters of support for my proposal in new clause 1 and amendment No. 25, and only 30 in opposition to it.

§ Mr. Churchill

I shall turn to that issue at a later stage when we deal with other amendments.

There is a broad measure of support throughout the country for the Bill and for something to be done to pull up the broadcasters and remind them rather more firmly than has been the case in recent years of their responsibilities to Parliament and to the public. There will undoubtedly be deep disappointment and concern—indeed anger—if their wishes are frustrated along with the will of Parliament, which was expressed so clearly on 24 January when the House voted by 5:1 in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The House had a different Bill before it on that occasion.

§ Mr. Churchill

There would be that reaction if their wishes were frustrated by only a handful of Members. I hope that that will not happen and that the spirit of friendly and constructive co-operation which prevailed in Committee will be continued.

§ Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesham)

Will my hon. Friend tell those people who will be angry if the Bill does not complete its passage through the House exactly what the Bill will do to help them if it is enacted?

§ Mr. Churchill

rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) responded to that invitation, we would be getting away from the amendment. We must discuss the amendment that is before the House.

§ Mr. Churchill

The hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) claims that the case for the Bill has thus far not been proved. The hon. Lady contends that the case has not been made that broadcasters have failed in self-regulation and suggests that thus far concern has been expressed only about two films—"Jubilee" and "Sebastiane". I hope to make it clear that that is not so and that concern is not restricted to those two films.

In addressing myself specifically to the amendment, I express strong agreement with the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe that nothing in clause 1 shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the governors of the BBC or the members of the IBA. There is nothing in clause 1 that would do that. It should go without saying that the Broadcasting Act 1981 stands in its full vigour and that the Bill is merely a backup measure of last resort that is aimed at ensuring respect for the guidelines and reinforcing the authority of the statutory bodies in upholding them. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, the standards of the guidelines enjoin each authority that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency". Those standards are far higher than the minimum ones that the Bill aims to guarantee. The fact that the authorities have failed in their duty to uphold such standards should be obvious to all except the most myopic of television viewers.

The hon. Member for Nantwich and Crewe referred to the films "Jubilee" and "Sebastiane", and I shall quote briefly from the reply of the Director-General of the IBA, Mr. John Whitney, of 27 March when he said, apropos these two films, we had very specifically in mind the statutory requirements of the Broadcasting Act … that nothing should be included in programmes which 'offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling'. It was our considered opinion that neither film would conflict with the Act, provided they were shown late at night and as part of a season of films chosen and introduced by David Robinson, the film critic of 'The Times' … Both were widely shown in public cinemas, and, as you are aware, were at no stage prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. That is extremely relevant because one of the elements in the test of obscenity is to have regard to the audience. I can well understand that neither of the two films in question would be prosecutable if shown to an audience of 18-year-olds plus. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a reply of great significance from Mr. Alasdair Milne, the Director-General of the BBC, of 8 April. He told me that for the month of February, the most recent month for which figures are available, the typical number of 4–17 year olds watching television between 11 p.m. and midnight ranges between 0.8 million and 1.8 million depending on the day of the week. He added that after midnight to closedown the viewership of those aged between 4 and 17 years is between 8 per 578 cent. and 13 per cent. What would be the fate of a cinema owner who regularly allowed 8 per cent. to 13 per cent. of his audience to be children from the age of 4 to 17 years? He would be prosecuted and his licence would be removed. I do believe—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

rose—

§ Mr. Churchill

The hon. Lady has had her opportunity, but I will give way.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those who seek to prosecute the cinema owner would have to demonstrate that those children were in the cinema. I would love to know where the BBC got the figures from.

§ Mr. Churchill

The figures come from the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. Both the IBA and the BBC draw their figures from that organisation.

There are between 800,000 to 1.8 million children watching the many X-rated films which go out. Mr. Alasdair Milne made it clear that, in the course of last year, there were no fewer than 62 X-rated films broadcast on the BBC alone. That is a significant figure.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at no point in the 24 hours will it be possible for anyone to show any material which is not acceptable to children?

§ Mr. Churchill

What I am questioning and what millions of parents of small children and teenage children question is whether a broadcasting authority has the right—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Parents have a right. There is a switch on the television—on-off.

§ Mr. Churchill

—in defiance of its statutory obligations to broadcast material which would be held to deprave and corrupt young people, when those films are available to adult-only cinemas.

§ Mr. Hayes

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I was horrified to learn that so many 14-year-olds are watching television at that time of night. Surely my hon. Friend must accept that it is most hypocritical for parents who have allowed their children to watch these sort of films to write and ask for legislation. The most worrying aspect is the lack of parental control.

§ Mr. Churchill

It may be fine to talk of parental control in the cosy Hampstead garden suburb in which the broadcasting apparatchik may reside with their nannies or au pairs to look after their children. However, in the type of area which I and many other hon. Members represent—industrial Britain—there are tens of thousands of families per constituency, single-parent families, families where the parents are shift workers, where no one is left at home to regulate the children's viewing. The figures produced by the BBC reveal that there are up to 1.8 million children who watch television up to midnight.

The idea that anything goes after 9 pm is a fraud and can no longer be used as justification by the broadcasting authorities. This week has been the horrifying case of a four-year-old girl who was raped by two 11-year-old boys.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Do not start on that.

§ Mr. Churchill

Where do 11–year-olds get the idea of committing such a crime if it is not from either pornographic magazines or from a diet of sex and violence thrust on them in their homes by television?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Demonstrate the evidence.

§ Mr. Churchill

The hon. Lady asks for evidence. I mention a letter I received from someone in Leicestershirewho writes: At about 10.45 am on 20 February I tuned in to Central TV, to watch the School's programme."— I stress school's programme— The programme was one of a series called 'Starting Out'. Two youngsters take Y.T.S. jobs at an hotel, the lad in the kitchens and the girl as a chambermaid … The girl gets plied with drink by the manager and before long we are shown her in bed in the hotel and the manager has come naked and completely uninvited into her bed and we are shown him raping her. The scene is quite explicit. That is a school programme which goes out at 10.45 am on Saturday morning.

Another parent from Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, wrote to the editor of the TV Times and said: During the children's school holiday,. I turned on the TV at 10.45 am to see if there was anything suitable for my small children and heard: 'I expect he just wants to get into your knickers. Another letter on the same televison programme states: We are not embarrassed: we are horrified that any school children are so exploited and subjected to such verbal muck. That is what the broadcasters are allowed to put out on schools programmes. The broadcasters smugly ask for the link to be proved between violence and sex on television and what is happening in the country.

Broadcasters proclaim that this medium is the most powerful medium in the world for communication and for putting over ideas. If a television company is a commercial one it will try to sell a few minutes viewing time for thousands of pounds due to the viewing power of the medium.

A letter published in the Lancet on 22 March offers a link between a programme and the results of that programme. The letter was written by two doctors of the department of medicine at Hackney hospital and it states: On Sunday, March 2, the Omnibus edition of the BBC Television's soap opera Eastenders showed the character Angie taking an overdose. In the following week we experienced a 300 per cent. increase in the number of patients attending the accident-and-emergency department at the Hackney Hospital in East London for deliberate overdose … In the week after the Eastenders programme 22 patients attended the accident-andemergency department having taken an overdose. During the previous 10 weeks the average had been 6.9. During the previous 10 to years the average … was 6.7. Sue Bishop of Birmingham's Sunday Mercury said: Shocking new evidence of the 'copycat' link between television violence and real life tragedies has been revealed by doctors in the Midlands. They say that during the week after the overdose drama in 'Eastenders' attempted suicide cases at their hospital almost DOUBLED. In one week more than 40 people were admitted after taking an overdose of drugs like Angie Watts in the BBC soap opera … And their message to viewers 'For heaven's sake don't copy what you see on television. Angie may have survived—but you could die'. I think the link is incontrovertible.

§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said and it is regrettable if there was such a sequence of events. Is he suggesting that if the Bill were to become law, sequences as that drug-taking sequence in "Eastenders" would no longer be possible? I suggest that the Bill would do nothing about it.

§ Mr. Churchill

I was answering the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich who suggested that the broadcasting authorities are living up to their responsibilities. I do not believe that they are and I think 580 this is clear evidence that they are not. That sequence was directly contrary to the BBC's guidelines for its programme producers.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor

My hon. Friend has demonstrated the link between what is happening on television and people's behaviour. On exactly the same principle, violence is copied.

§ Mr. Churchill

There is no question about that. When I asked my local chief superintendent whether there was evidence of the public perpetrating copy cat crimes, he said, "You should see some of my constables. They think that they are Starsky and Hutch, whereas a few years ago—

§ Mr. Dubs

It would have been Dixon of Dock Green.

§ Mr. Churchill

Indeed, it would have been Dixon of Dock Green.

10.30 am

The governing bodies should take their responsibilities more seriously and get a firmer grip on what is broadcast before further damage is done. Amendment No. 1 is defective in two respects. First, the cable authority is outside the Bill's scope. Cable programmes are subject to a separate offence of obscenity, to be found in section 25 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. In any event, that section bites on the providers of cable services, not on the Cable Authority which, unlike the broadcasting authorities, is not responsible for the content of programmes distributed by cable systems.

Secondly, the amendment omits to mention members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, who are responsible for all programmes shown on that channel. In any case, the amendment is unnecessary. The duties and responsibilities of broadcasters are clearly laid down in the royal charter of the BBC and in the licensing and agreement with the Government. They are also set out with respect to the IBA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority in the Broadcasting Act 1981. Nothing ir the Bill bears on their existing responsibilities. The existing requirement, which is to put out nothing which offends against good taste, will continue to be the test and nothing in the Bill implies otherwise. I must therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was diverted from her case a little by interventions from Conservative Members, notably the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), on violence being shown on television. There is a good deal to be said on that subject. I had hoped that this would have been a decent Bill setting out standards, but I regret to say that it is not. If we have a decent Bill, we may do something about the violence on television.

I sat through the Second Reading and the whole of the Committee stage. There has been no sign from the Bill's sponsors that they see a reduction of the showing of violence on our screens as any part of their purpose. It has been sex, sex, sex, and nothing but sex.

§ Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that,, since 1982, the courts have included violence in the definition of obscenity so that, when applying the Bill to television, we are applying standards of obscenity which include violence? If he accepts that, does he accept that the Bill is necessary?

§ Mr. Mikardo

I do not accept that because the definition of obscenity is so blurred—we had this over and again in Committee—that nobody can say what it includes and what it does not. I can only go on the speeches that were made in Committee and on Second Reading. They were all about sex. Conservative Members kept on about "Sebastiane" and "Jubilee". I did not hear anything in Committee, although it has just been mentioned lightheartedly, about "Starsky and Hutch", "The Professionals" or any other programme that shows violence. It was clear throughout the Committee stage that the sponsors are obsessed about sex and that that is what the Bill is all about.

§ Mr. Churchill

I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I and others said about "Jubilee" on Second Reading and in Committee. Although there was offensive language and an offensive portrayal of sex, the burden of the complaint from both sides of the House was its vicious cruelty and violence.

§ Mr. Mikardo

If I were looking for examples of violence, I would not have thought that "Jubilee" was a number one runner. It was so interestng to the hon. Member and others only because it links violence and sex.

Much emphasis has been put on copycat behaviour. Any senior police officer will confirm that newscasts most induce copycat behaviour. Do those who support the Bill propose that a horrendous rape should not be reported? According to the police, the greatest copycat influence comes from news reporting. A lot more people, especially young people, see "News at Ten" or the BBC's 6 pm news than ever saw "Sebastiane" or "Jubilee". Hon. Members must be careful when carrying their argument through to what, on the face of it, appears a logical conclusion, but which is nonsense.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich because her amendment deals with one of the things that has become apparent during debates on the Bill—the principal motivation of the Bill's sponsors is a crude and massive prejudice against the BBC and the IBA. The hem of their skirt shows all of the time. To judge from behaviour on one occasion, to which I shall refer on a later amendment, there are some Conservative Members who prefer the standards of The Sun to those of the BBC and the IBA. That is not much of a tribute to their standards or their sense of morality.

As it has come up again today, and doubtless will do so again, I want to try to dispose once and for all all of Conservative Members' obsession with "Sebastiane" and "Jubilee". I did not see "Jubilee", but I saw "Sebastiane". It had no tendency to deprave and corrupt.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

It sent me to sleep.

§ Mr. Mikardo

It had a very strong tendency to bore me out of my mind. I object powerfully on two grounds to "Sebastiane" being shown. The first is that it was so boring and slow. Everything took such a long time. It took ages for anything to happen. I have always thought that those who engage in depravity are pretty sharp, alert and quick about it, but everything that happened in "Sebastiane" took ages and was very boring.

Secondly, I objected to the fact that the characters spoke their Latin with an accent different from that which the Romans used.

§ Mr. Mellor

Was the hon. Gentleman there?

§ Mr. Mikardo

That is a fair question, as a giggle across the Floor of the House. I am nearly as old as that, but not quite. We now know, by research, how the Romans pronounced their Latin. They did not pronounce it in the Italianate way that was used by the characters in "Sebastiane". I believe, therefore, that the BBC ought not to have shown it. I agree with Mr. Winner, with whom I crossed swords on one occasion on "Any Questions", about that.

The two groups of television authorities produce between them in excess of 30,000 hours of programmes a year. If we accept that those two films were an error of judgment, they represent a one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of the annual output of the BBC and the IBA contractors. All mortals are fallible. I wonder how many hon. Members could put their hands on their hearts and swear that during their activities both inside this House and outside it the clangers they have dropped amount only to a one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of those activities. If shackles are to be placed on the broadcasting authorities because we consider that they are unfit to do their jobs, perhaps we ought to consider whether we are fit to be Members of Parliament, because the clangers that we drop during our activities amount to more than a one hundredth part of 1 per cent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that one will get what she, with here customary charitableness, called eccentrics taking up prosecutions. I say to the Minister, because he intervened on this point, that I am not altogether consoled by the fact that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required. In recent years there has been a good deal of evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions is highly selective about the speed with which he tackles different kinds of breaches of the law.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

There was a great scandal about the sale of blood by the National Health Service to private sources, and I put down questions over a period of 17 months before any action was taken. When I asked why it had taken so long, I was told that the investigations had been complicated. However, other investigations are completed with astonishing speed.

§ Mr. Mikardo

My hon. Friend quotes a particularly graphic example. One would have to carry out only a few hours of research to find another dozen examples like it. Therefore I am not altogether consoled by what the Minister said on that point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, this is not the Bill that was discussed on Second Reading. This is the fourth Bill. There was the original Bill upon which we voted. Then the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) produced a mark 2 version, which he then abandoned for his mark 3 version. After that he abandoned his mark 3 version for this Bill. As this Bill is different from that which we discussed on Seond Reading, we do not know for certain that the Bill as it now stands would have received a Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman quoted with pride his big majority at Second Reading. However, he does not know whether he would have obtained that kind of majority for this Bill. The hon. Gentleman's Bill contained matters that were so hair raising that it resulted in certain hon. Members salivating 583 with recollection and in many votes being cast for his Bill that he would not have gained had it been this rather cold fish of a Bill.

§ Mr. Cash

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the amendments that have been moved and accepted and that now form part of this Bill might in some respects have been regarded as beyond the scope of the original Bill?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is a matter for the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Mikardo

As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not a point of order. It is not relevant to the points that I was making. If the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) gained some satisfaction out of making his intervention, I wish him joy of it, but I do not have to take any notice of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to seek to ensure that we do not place further unreasonable shackles upon the broadcasting authorities. They go to great lengths to try to meet public opinion. Of course they will make mistakes once in a while, but nobody can charge them with showing indifference to the problems that we are discussing, and it would be wrong to seek to shackle them further.

§ Mr. Mellor

As the House knows from other interventions that I have made at other stages of the Bill, the Government are neutral on the proposition as to whether broadcasters should be made subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or whether the exemption that they have always enjoyed should be continued. That remains the Government's view.

However, I make what I hope are a few helpful points about the amendment. It is apparent from the discussions so far that, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), all those who have spoken or intervened have been at pains to point out that the guidelines that apply to both the IBA and the BBC are, in their terms, far tighter than anything that is prescribed in the 1959 Act. Most of them have either explicitly or impliedly indicated some dissatisfaction with the manner in which the guidelines are enforced by the broadcasting authorities. That is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me. However, I hope that the broadcasters will take seriously hon. Members' comments and some of the examples that they have given. There will be an opportunity for them to do so during the reconsideration of the BBC's guidelines that is being undertaken by a committee that is chaired by Mr. Wyatt.

Always at the heart of the issue has been the question whether the imposition of a long stop—nobody can assert that the 1959 Act would be any better than a long stop—would have the effect of toning up the system or, as some have contended, whether it would have the effect of placing even less emphasis upon the significance of the guidelines than is already the case. That is not a matter that I want to go into in detail, because it has been covered in the general issues. However, if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is concerned that the requirements under the BBC charter or the requirements that weigh on the IBA under the Broadcasting Act would be ousted by the Bill if it were to become law, I hasten to reassure her, as I tried to do in my 584 intervention, that that would not be so. I hope that nothing that anyone has said is intended to do other than reinforce the duties of the broadcasters, which they clearly owe to Parliament, to observe the arrangements made under the charter and the Broadcasting Act.

If that were the case I could well understand that the hon. Lady might say, "Well why not make the declaratory statement?" That is effectively what her amendment suggests. I would have no objection to that although it is not in the end entirely a matter for me. The trouble is that the amendment is defective—I make no complaint of that—in two material particulars. First, it makes no reference to the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, although that is an oversight that I can well understand because one does not necessarily think of that authority as much as the BBC. I see the hon. Lady hiding her face in shame, but she need not do so because there are no Welsh Nationalists here today.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

We are all Welsh Nationalists.

§ Mr. Mellor

One stood in Putney at the previous general election but he did not do very well.

§ Mr. Dubs

Next time.

§ Mr. Mellor

We shall have to wait and see.

§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)

He had an interesting sense of geography.

§ Mr. Mellor

Secondly, there is a reference in the amendment to the Cable Authority but cable is separately regulated under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and is outwith the scope of the broadcasting arrangements dealt with here.

I hope that, whatever else we may disagree about, the hon. Lady will accept two propositions. First, that the rules by which she sets so much store, as do I, will remain. They are not ousted by the Bill. Secondly, it is not unfortunately possible to accept the amendment as saying that they will remain. It would simply mean that there would need to be consequential amendments in the House of Lords which would be of no advantage.

§ Mr. Dubs

The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) referred to an extract from "East Enders" and talked about copycat tendencies and the influence of television on behaviour. We all accept that television is the most powerful medium that there is. Those of us who are old enough to have seen the transition in Britain from a non-television society to a television society have a better idea of the increasing impact of television on all aspects of life.

Given that television is such a powerful influence, what part should be played either by the House or the BBC and IBA in saying that as there is a tendency to copy what is seen on television certain things should not be shown? The difficulty with that argument is that there is almost no end to it. Almost anything that can be seen on television might conceivably have a damaging influence on some viewers. Therefore, deciding where to draw the line is a difficult task which has defeated many people. Indeed, one of the reasons why there has been some criticism of the IBA and the BBC is because they may not have made the right decision.

Much as I regret the possibility that a drug-taking scene in "East Enders" led to a number of impressionable young people doing likewise, I find it difficult to say that therefore "East Enders" should not have shown that scene. 585 I do not have the hon. Gentleman's advantage of having watched that incident, so I am basing what I say on his description of it. But I find it hard to say that a programme such as "East Enders" should not be allowed to depict incidents which happen, alas, all too frequently, judging from the newspapers.

§ Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in a programme I watched the other day a representative from MIND strongly condemned that particular incident because of the very facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has mentioned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support MIND in that particular instance.

§ Mr. Dubs

I respect MIND as an organisation, but without having seen the film it is hard to make a specific judgment or to contradict judgments made by others. All I would say is that overdoses of drugs are deeply regrettable, but they do happen, as British newspapers show. I find it hard to say that no film which depicts life as it may be should exclude incidents which are part of life, even if they are regrettable.

§ Mr. Churchill

The perniciousness of what was shown rested in the fact that the television personality Angie downed an overdose of barbiturates with a bottle of gin and was saved. That is what gives rise to the grounds for concern. Many impressionable young people, having just finished an unhappy love affair, may think that they could do the same thing and also be saved. The fact that there was such a significant increase in the suicide and attempted suicide rate that week can only be a matter for grave concern. Indeed, it has been accepted by the broadcasting authorities that that should not have gone out and they did not include it in the repeat.

§ Mr. Dubs

All I can say to that the is that responsibility lies more with the broadcasting authorities than with anybody else. But I still question whether, if the Bill becomes law, there is anything in it that would put a stop to such an incident.

That brings me to the heart of what I want to say. I deal with what the Minister said earlier. The objectives and aims which we share—that there are things from which impressionable young people should be protected—can best be achieved by the operation of the BBC and IBA guidelines rather than by legislation which, particularly in the context of the example that the hon. Gentleman has quoted, would not achieve that end.

§ Mr. Mikardo

My hon. Friend is right to say that if that criterion is applied, there is nowhere that it can end. For example, teetotal bodies might object to the fact that in the two series which have huge audiences—"Coronation Street" and "East Enders"&#x