Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, Etc.) (Amendment) Bill

§ Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is clear from the volume of comment in the media, as well as the numerous representations received by many hon. Members, that there is considerable public concern at the level of violence and the increasing amount of obscene material transmitted by television into millions of homes, where such programmes will inevitably be watched by large numbers of children and young persons.

Violence on television was the subject of pronouncements by the Annan committee on broadcasting, which reported in March 1977, and of the White Paper on broadcasting issued in July 1978. Paragraph 103 of the White Paper said: The programme issue which has caused most concern to the public is the portrayal of violence on television and its effects. It went on to say: The effects of television programmes on viewers are of their nature difficult to determine. However, the Government is in no doubt that the only safe course is for the broadcasting authorities to assume undesirable effects unless convincing evidence to the contrary emerges. This means that the authorities must be cautious in broadcasting programmes, particularly programmes in which violence is portrayed, if these might have effects on susceptible people, especially young people and children. That of course, is the issue to which the Bill is addressed.

Furthermore, there is disquiet in those millions of families attempting to bring up young or teenage children with proper values so that they in turn may become responsible members of society. There is readily available a new brand of highly explicit sex magazines, sold all too often by local newsagents to which children go to buy their sweets, or at bookstalls where such magazines are thrust before young people.

In a recent publication entitled "Portrayal of Violence in Television Programmes", the BBC asked: Why is violence on television thought to be dangerous? It went on to answer that question and said: The research into the effect of this increased acquaintance with violent happenings suggest several dangers: (a) the possibility of imitation; (b) the danger of psychological damage, particularly to children or to immature or unbalanced adults; (c) the danger of shocking or nauseating to the extent of causing the viewer to misinterpret the intention of the whole programme or to switch off before the situation is resolved; and (d) the fear that exposure to constant scenes of violence may blunt the emotions and sensibilities of the viewer, so that he comes to accept violence as commonplace. It is the last suspected danger of desensitisation and erosion of inhibitions that seems to ask the most worrying question about the accusations highlighted by recent research.

§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should introduce this Bill to deal with the problems that he has outlined. Constant violence on television troubles me and seems not to be outlawed by the Bill. The only provision is for vicious cruelty, and that would not outlaw repeated violence, fighting and killing in, for example, police programmes.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She should be aware of the primary test of obscenity contained in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The tendency to deprave and corrupt has been held by the courts to deal with violence. It has dealt to great effect with violence in what are colloquially known as video nasties. That level of extreme violence is covered in the provisions of the Bill, which for the first time will bring television broadcasting within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act.

In addition, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, the Bill provides, in the additional test for obscenity, for vicious cruelty to be held to be obscene. I am the first to recognise that the list contained in clause 2 is far from perfect and susceptible to improvement. Should the House afford the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that in Committee hon. Members will improve on the language that I have set out in that list.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

The hon. Gentleman has not understood clause 2. Desensitising is due, not to the individual horrific incident, but to the continual careless portrayal of casual violence, which will escape the Bill. The real obscenity is the continual careless soft porn of our daily lives. The hon. Gentleman does not understand one iota of what he is dealing with.

§ Mr. Churchill

I understand the concern that has been expressed, not only by the hon. Gentleman, but by millions of people, about the drip, drip effect of the portrayal of violence on television. It is my wish to seek to address that problem more effectively than I have done in the Bill, but that has eluded me. If, during the Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman is able to suggest language which effectively deals with that, it will be welcome.

One of my earlier drafts contained a reference to gross violence. Most people might think they are opposed to gross violence, but that opposition would of course rule out most good Western and war films, and many other forms of entertainment which the majority of people would not regard as reasonable to be ruled out by legislation.

The lower level of violence, for which it is much more difficult for the House to legislate, is a matter properly left to the broadcasting authorities and the watchdog committees. That is what they are there for: that is their job. All that the House can do is to lay down a bare minumum requirement below which standards shall not be allowed to fall in public television transmissions and in sound broadcasting. That is why my Bill seeks to address only the grosser forms of violence and obscenity.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Does my hon. Friend recall that in a publication entitled "The Portrayal of Violence in Television Programmes", published by the BBC in 1983, the matter of desensitisation was examined? It is clear that what causes problems is not only what he described as the drip, drip effect, but the acute and deliberate acts of violence portrayed on television, and those problems have to be addressed. The publication said: Nevertheless a consensus of research suggests that desensitisation can result from an excess of violence and the amount and treatment of violence needs to be carefully examined all the time. It then gave examples of acts of violence which could be regarded as being desensitising and ought to be stopped.

§ Mr. Churchill

I agree with my hon. Friend. The drip, drip effect is worrying, but it is much more difficult to 558 provide for in legislation. The specific acts to which my hon. Friend refers—I shall come to one or two in a moment—make a great impression on people who might be thought to be susceptible, because they are young, or are in some way mentally unbalanced, or have a drug or alcohol dependency.

§ Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

Is not the evidence for what my hon. Friend is saying coming from a different but extremely important quarter, namely, the increasing number of primary school teachers who are reporting that five-year-olds coming to school for the first time are more aggressive and much more difficult to handle than they have been in the past? Such teachers would readily subscribe to the view that the drip, drip effect of increasing violence on television to which many young children are exposed because of the irresponsibility or carelessness of their parents is having a dire effect upon them. It will go on doing so unless it is checked by the kind of legislation that my hon. Friend has in mind.

§ Mr. Churchill

In the BBC report on the portrayal of violence from which I quoted, reference is made to those likely to watch such material. It says: Any programme is watched by a multiplicity of different audiences … it may be designed for late evening viewing by intelligent adults, but it may also be watched by unattended children. In the theatre, cinema or bookshop you pay and thereby choose to see or read what is there. In television you make no such choice … We are aware that the BBC's programmes will always be seen by a handful of disturbed people, who may be further disturbed by what they see on the screen. Large numbers will, however, watch any adventure or 'horror' film, comedy series or popular crime series, even when placed late at night. There are even larger numbers of children among late night audiences at weekends. There we have it. Although significant numbers of children will be watching at any time of day or night, on the admission of those authorities they see fit to put out X-rated material, or 18 material, as it is now categorised, to millions of homes. If shown in the cinema, that material would be restricted to adults.

§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend intended to address himself to this question. So far he has addressed himself to the effect of those programmes on children. Will he consider their effect on adults in their dealings with children?

§ Mr. Churchill

That is also a very important aspect.

There is no evidence that the rising tide of violence and pornography is leaving the youth of our country unscathed, or that there is no link between such material and the horrifying increase in violent crime, including violence of a sexual or sadistic nature, of which most frequently women and young children are the victims. Indeed, there is a powerful and mounting body of evidence suggesting precisely the contrary—that the growing diet of violence and obscenity to which society as a whole, including children and young persons, is being subjected is, to a significant although admittedly unquantifiable extent, responsible for many of the violent and sexual assaults regularly perpetrated in the constituencies of each and every one of us.

§ Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesham)

I must admit to a considerable amount of confusion about my hon. Friend's target. At one moment I feel that it is the extreme 559 programme for which he is going, which every right hon. and hon. Member would like to be off the screen, if it ever goes on the screen, and the next moment he seems to be referring to the drip-drip effect of ordinary programmes. Will he outline some of the day-to-day programmes, which many people watch, which he sees as his target? That would be immensely helpful to all of us.

§ Mr. Churchill

As I have said, within the ambit of such legislation it is possible to deal only with the more extreme manifestations of obscenity and violence. While I deplore the lower levels of violence which one sees so often on the television screen, and which undoubtedly have a harmful effect, that must be the responsibility of those charged with programming and the watchdog authorities.

The increase in crimes of violence is most disturbing and cannot be separated from the rising tide of obscene and violent material that is thrust before young people and society as a whole. Taking the figures for England and Wales, between 1954 and 1984 crimes of violence against the person increased from 7,506 to 114,187—a 15-fold increase. Notified cases of rape, which, inevitably, are far fewer than the actual total, increased during the same period from 294 to 1,433, a fivefold increase.

It is clear that the children of the nation are at risk. The House has always regarded the protection of children as one of its highest duties, and it is in that spirit that I put my Bill before the House and seek the support of hon. Members in all quarters and representative of every party. The measure is calculated to guarantee that transmissions by the broadcasting authorities are never again allowed to fall below a minimum standard in terms of obscene and violent material without risking the penalties that would be incurred by any other media publishing such material. Furthermore, it would ensure that the more explicit brand of pornographic magazine would no longer be sold in shops and bookstalls to which children and young persons have access, but would be available only to adults in appropriately licensed sex shops.

§ Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking)

What does the hon. Gentleman think about page three of The Sun?

§ Mr. Churchill

Page three of The Sun would not come within the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Lady feels that it should. In Committee it will be up to her to move an amendment, if she wishes, to deal with that.

I have no illusions about the fact that in the legislation I am taking on not one but two enormously powerful vested interests: on the one hand, the moguls of the media, who believe that they, unique of all the media in this country, should have a God-given right to be above the law in these matters, and, on the other, the pimps and pornographers of the multi-billion pound sex magazine industry, who feel that they should be allowed to peddle their wares even in local sweet shops.

Those two enormously powerful lobbies are seeking to deploy their muscle to prevent the legislation from reaching the statute book. Not only have they written to every hon. Member urging that the Bill be rejected, but I understand that representations have been made at a high level that the Bill should be allowed to proceed no further. I venture to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not give in to such pressure on a matter of such great public concern to the House and the country.

560 The public may have little appreciation of the extent to which private Member's legislation, as opposed to Government-sponsored legislation, has played an important and necessary role in carrying through many important reforms of the law, possibly nowhere more than in matters relating to obscene publications. It may have escaped the notice of many hon. Members that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was itself a private Member's Bill introduced by the then right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford, now the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins).

In more recent years, other measures have been placed on the statute book. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for the Protection of Children Act 1978, which makes it illegal to take, distribute, possess or publish any indecent photographs of children; to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which went a long way towards cleaning up the hoardings outside cinemas and other places and the front covers of magazines; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) whose Video Recordings Act 1984 has made illegal the showing or sale of what are colloquially known as video nasties, and is leading to the classification of all video material available for sale or hire.

I refer to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 provides that, for the first time, the Obscene Publications Act shall apply to television and sound broadcasting. Subsection (2) protects broadcasters from vexatious litigation by providing that proceedings under that clause shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am aware that many people think that that safeguard should not be present and that, as with most other forms of publication, the private citizen should have the right to initiate proceedings. I respect that view, but believe that the safeguard is necessary and that it would be in line with existing arrangements in respect of the cinema, which, though like television and sound broadcasting, has its own watchdog authority in the form of the British Board of Film Classification. It is none the less subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Videos and cable broadcasting have recently been brought within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, in line with the cinema. Television and sound broadcasting alone remain outwith the Act. They were exempted because, in the words of the then Solicitor-General, Sir Harry Hylton-Foster: Television and broadcasting have their own censorship arrangements, as have films. The point that we have always sought to make, and I believe it to be sound, is that it is inconceivable that on the full public broadcasting of B.B.C. or I.T.A. there would ever be a programme so flagrantly obscene that it could be prosecutable under this Bill. If it were, it would be very difficult for the defendant to defend himself, because such programmes go out and are published to a very wide audience." —[Official Report, 24 April 1959; Vol. 604, c. 835.] The inconceivable has happened. I believe that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues who watched two recent Channel 4 efforts broadcast last November—"Jubilee" and "Sebastiane"—felt that the transmission of those films represented a flagrant violation of the statutory duty laid on television and broadcasting authorities not to transmit material which offends against public decency or good taste". While certain producers try to push ever further the frontiers of what can be pumped into people's homes, 561 securing notoriety for themselves in the process, the watchdog committees have fallen down on the duties entrusted to them. I understand that in this case they did not trouble to view those X-rated films before they were put out.

§ Mr. Matthew Parris (Derbyshire, West)

I understand that those films received X certificates for showing in the cinema. Would they have fallen foul of the Bill?

§ Mr. Churchill

They would, indeed. In the case of "Jubilee", apart from the obscenity of the action, to which I shall not refer, and the four-letter content of the script, from which I shall not quote, it was the way in which the acts of violence were so lovingly and longingly dwelt on that I found particularly offensive. The viewer was shown in close-up the suffocation to death of a man with his head wrapped in a transparent plastic sheet. There was a shot of a young woman being bound to a lamp post with coils of barbed wire which cut into her flesh.

I found the portrayal of the police most insidious. Two police officers dash into what appears to be a youth club where young people are playing snooker. They kick a couple of youngsters in the groin and shoot two others gratuitously. That sets the scene for alleged police brutality and violence and is, no doubt, held to justify the final scene in which a policeman is jumped by a couple of girl punks who chop him up with razor blades. At the end, his body rolls over before the camera and his guts spill out almost into the viewer's lap.

The IBA saw fit to transmit that film within six weeks of the murder by a mob in Tottenham of PC Keith Blakelock, but was surprised at the anger felt in the country and house.

§ Sir Bernard Braine

And disgust.

§ Mr. Churchill

Indeed. It was surprised at the anger at its treatment of its responsibilities. It is not enough that the programme controllers, confronted with the whiff of Prime Ministerial grapeshot and the prospect of a little legislation, should be dashing around saying that they will review their guidelines. It is not the guidelines that need reviewing. It is the guidelines that need upholding, implementing and observing.

The BBC and the IBA have announced this week that they will clean up their act still further. In the press only this morning it emerges that a film which they have watched and feel would be too strong will not be put out because they regard it as disgusting. Why does it take legislation or the threat of it to get such action? What business have they planning to broadcast such material or commissioning such material in the first place? Is it not inevitable that, if the Bill is blocked, as the vested interests would like it to be, the authorities will quickly go back to their bad old ways and the watchdogs will go back to their corners and curl up fast asleep in their baskets?

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

I did not see the films which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I have no wish to have them described. Is it likely that if they had been available for viewing in cinemas the DPP would have consented to proceedings being taken against the IBA for showing them?

§ Mr. Churchill

I think that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets the situation. The films were originally 562 granted an X certificate. When they are shown in the cinema, the audience is exclusively adult. There is a clear difference, or there ought to be, between that and material that is broadcast on public television to 30 million homes in which, as the authorities admit, significant numbers of children and young people will be watching. The films that I mentioned would be caught by at least three of the additional tests of obscenity that I propose. They are the lewd exhibition of genital organs, excretory functions, mutilation and vicious cruelty towards persons.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

Although the common law offence of obscenity has not been invoked for many years, it applies to broadcasting, notwithstanding the fact that the 1959 Act does not.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. A central element of the Bill, which is long overdue, is that henceforth broadcasters, like newspapers editors and proprietors, film producers and the book and magazine trade, will be subject to the law of the land in matters of obscenity and violence.

§ Mr. Fairbairn

I understand the difficulty of drafting a Bill of this nature, but it does not apply to Scotland. Why are the Scots to have tartan obscenity, when the English are not to have non-tartan obscenity?

§ Mr. Churchill

My hon. and learned Friend raises a relevant point. My Bill is not intended to apply to either Scotland or to Northern Ireland, because the original Act does not apply to them. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, both Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative provisions.

The IBA has sent notes to all hon. Members on its view of the effect of the Bill, if it is enacted. The IBA states: The Obscene Publications Act is designed to apply to material for which no other regulatory mechanism exists. Public broadcasting is centrally controlled, and subject to statutory standards. That statement is inaccurate. Indeed, I am surprised that the Solicitor-General has not written the IBA a letter which someone may leak. The cinema, like broadcasting, is centrally controlled and subject to what might be called censorship. Nevertheless, it comes within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act, and the British Board of Film Classification welcomes that fact.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

The hon. Gentleman would not wish inadvertently to mislead the House. The old British Board of Film Censors, which is now the British Board of Film Classification, has from the beginning made its position clear. If it is asked to give an opinion on a script it may do so, but it is not a film censor. It classifies whatever is brought before it. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman may think that the parallel he draws is valid, it is inaccurate.

§ Mr. Churchill

The hon. Lady is not right on that point. I appreciate that for cosmetic purposes the board chooses to be known as the British Board of Film Classification, as opposed to the British Board of Film Censors, but it can and does refuse classification for certain categories of film. The board has effectively censored and ruled out video nasties. It certainly has a censorship role, and films are definitely subject to the Obscene Publications Act. The IBA's statement is factually inaccurate.

THe IBA states in relation to the Bill: 563 The inclusion of the broadcasting authorities would seriously impair the ability to provide responsible public service broadcasting. The IBA has nothing to fear from the Bill, unless it intends to put over material which is patently obscene, and so obscene and violent that a court of law would hold it to be an offence under the Act.

It is high time that the House affirmed the glorious principle enunciated with such eloquence by Lord Denning when, as Master of the Rolls, he declared; Be ye ever so mighty, the Law of England is still above you. I recognise that the tireless campaigner Mrs. Mary Whitehouse and many others would have liked the Bill to go further, and, specifically, to replace the principal test of obscenity contained in the 1959 Act—the tendency to deprave and corrupt. That is beyond the scope of the Bill, and I certainly do not intend to replace that test. However, clause 2 introduces an additional test which will apply to material available in places to which children have access, that is, shops, and bookstalls and, by the fact that it is transmitted to 30 million homes, to material broadcast to homes.

I recognise that the Williams committee expressed great reservations about the concept of a list. I venture to think that that was because at the time the idea of a list was to replace the principal test of obscenity. That is not my intention. It is to be additional to the principal test. The weakness of a list alone is that inevitably people will use their ingenuity to find ever new forms of obscenity and loopholes. That is why I have not seen fit to seek to replace the original test of obscenity.

Most of the anxieties represented to me by the director general of the BBC, the chairman of IBA, the director of the British Board of Film Classification, and representatives of publishers and booksellers, with all of whom I have had consultations, would be met by section 4, on the defence of material published for the public good as being of cultural, artistic or educational merit.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg

A further anxiety is that in a limited number of cases materials that will fall within the excluded list are published for either medical or educational reasons. It appears that the section for defence will not protect such publications. Will my hon. Friend be prepared in Committee to consider amendments to take account of that anxiety?

§ Mr. Churchill

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point to which I am coming.

Following the representations that I have received, and if the House gives the Bill its Second Reading, I intend to introduce an amendment to clause 2 specifically to exclude articles which are primarily works of art, history or education, and work concerned with science or medical science. They would in any case be covered by section 4, but that would he clumsy, because it could lead to a prosecution and expensive legal fees before those involved could get shot of that prosecution. I should like an amendment which would exclude those articles from the scope of clause 2.

Following representations from the broadcasting authorities, and as before I entered the House I had the unpleasant task of going to battlefronts and reporting wars on various continents, I believe that an exemption should be made for current affairs news reporting. Many people find reporting from Aden and other battlefronts deeply 564 violent and offensive. Nevertheless, it is proper, within limits, to show that to the public. They should not be cocooned from it. It is above all artificial, synthetic and enacted violence which most people find offensive.

§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no objection to the Bill, as seems to be thought by some Labour Members, on the ground that it does not touch everything? It touches some important things, and surely that is what matters.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recognise that I have already taken up too much of the time of the House.

§ Ms. Clare Short

The hon. Gentleman said that he was not amending the original definition of "to degrade and corrupt". My understanding of the Bill is that the depiction of revolting things in paragraph (a) of the suggested subsection (3A) is in addition to the original definition. Therefore, he has slightly misled the House. The test is not whether those things are depicted in a way that would deprave or corrupt, but whether they are depicted at all.

§ Mr. Churchill

The hon. Lady is correct. This is an additional test or hurdle which such material—principally magazines sold in newsagents and bookstalls, and what is transmitted to the home by public television—will have to jump. However imperfect that list may be and susceptible to improvement in Committee, which I fully recognise, the material caught by the Bill will automatically be held to be obscene. There will be no question of calling in expert witnesses to say why something should be allowed. The material will simply be off-limits—something which broadcasters cannot put out or which magazine publishers cannot sell other than in a licensed sex shop.

The protection of children is one of the highest duties of the House, and I respectfully submit that there is a strong case for broadcasting to be brought within the scope of obscene publications legislation and for magazines of an explicit or pornographic nature not to be available in everybody's local newsagent or sweetshop.

I invite the House to support the Bill.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

It will be clear to the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to catch my eye will remember that.

§ Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

In response to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief.

I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill and, whatever its outcome, I congratulate the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on giving the House a substantial opportunity to debate this serious and worrying topic. There may be defects in what he is attempting, but at least he is trying to tackle a serious and comparatively new social problem.

My father was a Congregational minister. It was he who coined the phrase that the Labour party owed more to Methodism than to Marx, although I concede that the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—the late Morgan Phillips—was the man who put it into current popular usage. I come from this non-Conformist background, and the 565 House may know that recently I paid a heavy price for refusing to budge from the non-conformist views instilled into me in my youth.

Sometimes, we do not understand how very recent the phenomenon of television is. I did not see a television set until I was on leave from the Royal Navy in 1948 when I watched the third day of the fifth test against Australia at the Oval. I had been to the Oval on the first day and I saw England shot out for 52. That was bad, but worse was to come on the second day when Bradman was out for a duck in his last test innings. I could not face going to the ground for the third day. I was nearly 20 and I saw my first television set.

Now, almost day and night, there is a constant stream of programmes on various channels. We do not appreciate its impact on youth because many of us were not exposed to it during our formative years. The impact of the senses on what the mind learns and absorbs is vague. By far the most powerful sense for gathering information and impressions and forming opinions is the visual sense. Repeatedly in research the visual sense has been shown to be all important.

I remember soon after I came to the House conducting school parties around. They were almost anaesthetised by my tedious commentary until they got to the Princes' Chamber. They became alive then because on the walls of the Chamber are pictures of Henry VIII and his six wives, and there had been a recent television series on Henry VIII. They knew all about it, much more than I did—they knew which wives went which way, and so on. It is obvious that television is a most powerful medium and a most impressionable one.

It is self-evident that television has an impact on people or commercial television would not exist. People pay high prices to have their products and services advertised at what are called peak viewing times. That can only be because there must be a substantial impact on the viewers. It is easier to destroy standards in society than to establish them. I am not impressed by some of the material that I have received pointing out to me the error of my ways in being a sponsor of the Bill. It has been counter-productive.

The world is a violent place and we see enough violence in everyday life without having our children exposed to it in this way at young, impressionable ages. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill and I congratulate the hon. Member for Davyhulme on his enterprise in introducing it.

§ Sir Ian Percival (Southport)

I contratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on introducing the Bill and am happy to support him in it. I will make it as clear as I can, as quickly as I can, why I support the Bill's limited objectives. If passed, it will do something to reduce the volume of sheer filth with which our society is being soiled. We must do many other things. I was horrified to hear all the interruptions during my hon. Friend's speech. We know that he is trying to do only one of the things that could be done—that is to limit the bringing into our homes by television or bookstalls of the sheer filth that is made available to young children in those ways. That is the lowest common denominator and surely we can all share it. In case anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I point out that I have chosen the phrase 566 "sheer filth" very carefully. It is the mildest description that I can give. If one gets into the degrees of perversion involved, there is a danger of exaggerating; "sheer filth" is the lowest common denominator.

This filth degrades and debases human values and standards and could destroy the very dignity of life itself. I am not talking just about sexual matters. At least as important are cruelty, sadism and sheer crudity. The debasing of sexual values is of great importance in our society. Many aspects of the more open, modern approach to sex are wholly good. But what we are talking about takes all dignity and beauty from that fragile and mystical aspect of our lives, which if shorn of dignity and beauty, and, dare I be so old fashioned as to say, shorn of love can so easily be degraded and debased, so often bringing misery where there should be nothing but joy.

Why do I stress this aspect of sheer filth? I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is not smiling at what I am saying.

§ Mr. Churchill

She always does.

§ Ms. Short

rose—

§ Sir Ian Percival

If the hon. Lady can assure me that she is not smiling, then I shall be satisfied.

§ Ms. Short

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I was moved by the words that he used. That is why I was smiling.

§ Sir Ian Percival

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I am glad that I said what I did, because I greatly welcome her assurance.

Why do I stress this aspect of sheer filth? It is because I believe that, happily, most people have no first hand knowledge of the sheer filth that is being propagated, no idea how filthy it is. They do not see it.

Why, then, do I know about it? It is because I had to see some of it when I was Solicitor-General. I was nauseated by it. Why do people produce and publish it? I do not really mind why they do it. Whatever their reasons, it is a gross abuse of the freedoms, privileges and responsibilities of free speech, but what so often makes it even worse is that so much of it is produced and published purely for money, despite the fact that those who make money in this way well know the damage that it must do to some people. To produce and publish this material for money is in my view comparable in every respect with selling drugs for money, despite the fact that it is known that drugs destroy.

Most young people, especially young couples with children, understand the value of adhering, or trying to adhere—none of us is good enough always to adhere—to moral values and standards. They want very much to bring up their children in that belief and for us to assist them to do so. Heaven knows, they are faced with enough difficulties in trying to do so. If this House cannot at least provide them with the limited assistance that is afforded by the Bill, it is not the place of which I have been proud to be a Member for so long.

Let the House also be in no doubt as to the strength of public opinion. The vast majority of my constituents simply cannot understand how anybody could wish to make available this kind of filth or how anybody could stand up to defend the right of anybody to make it available. My constituents would be unable to understand this House if it were to defend the right of people to peddle 567 and propagate filth, especially for profit. I myself cannot believe that anyone who had seen it could defend the right of people to peddle and purvey the kind of stuff to which I am referring.

I hope that the House will take this opportunity to show that it is in tune with the people whom it represents and that it will do something to help young people, including young couples who are trying to bring up their children to enjoy a good, decent, law abiding life. The Bill will make a contribution towards that aim.

I sincerely hope that the House will give its backing to the Bill and will speed it on its way.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I had intended to say that I find the spectacle of the House of Commons lashing itself into a fervour about sexual matters faintly disquieting, but in view of the Bill that we are discussing perhaps that would be an unfortunate beginning.

I care desperately about the material that is seen by young children and about the way that their minds are formed, but I am very worried about the Bill. I came to this debate because I thought that the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) would be able to set at rest many of my fears about the drafting of the Bill and about what I can only describe as its highly subjective phraseology. I am afraid that he has not done so.

When the House frames legislation, we should ensure that it performs two tasks. First, it must be legislation that can be enforced. It must be properly framed, clear to those who have to respond to it and capable of being enforced. Secondly, the legislation must not be in response to a farrago of prejudice. It must grow out of a real need in the community.

I am as deeply concerned as any other right hon. or hon. Member about the increase in the number of cases of rape and violence against women. I should like right hon. and hon. Members to join me today in asking the Home Office to provide proper funding for rape crisis centres and proper training for our police forces. Then we should begin to tackle some of the problems that face so many of our people. However, I am not convinced that the Bill will have any effect upon those problems. The hon. Member for Davyhulme skated very lightly over some of the questions that he was asked. I intend to return to them because they are exceedingly important.

If the House of Commons takes the view that our children and young adults are being depraved because they are able to get hold of unsuitable material, we must be quite clear about what we are saying. If it is felt that the constant repetition of violence on television changes people's attitudes, all real violence must also be included. The hon. Member for Davyhulme did not answer that question. In fact, he said that he did not want current affairs programmes to be censored. That was a welcome reply. However, he did not reply to the question that he was asked about the constant drip, drip of violence that is almost acceptable: people being thrown out of cars or across rooms, or people constantly being shot at and attacked. He did not seem to think that that constituted a problem. He said that we had to be very careful, or we might rule out some of the western films that he likes.

§ Mr. Jackson

Is not the hon. Lady making the old mistake of making the best the enemy of the good?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

No, certainly not. I am saying that those who pass laws in this House have a responsibility to think about the way in which those laws are framed. If we put on to the statute book legislation that is manifest nonsense, far from protecting children all we shall do is to allow any lawyer to drive a coach and horses through it. The result will be the very opposite of what we are seeking to do.

§ Mr. Churchill

I do not believe that the hon. Lady could have followed me when I made it clear in reply to earlier questions that I was not overlooking the drip, drip of violence to which she referred. If she studied the matter as I have tried to do in recent weeks, she would find that it is very difficult to produce formulas that rule out the lower and medium levels of violence to which she referred, which I fully admit are very insidious, without excluding that which none of us wishes to exclude. For that reason, my Bill is a limited measure. It deals with the more extreme manifestations of both obscenity and violence.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The difficulty about that is that I understand that the Bill would change the definition of obscenity and would add to some of the existing safeguards — [Interruption.] I am very happy to be barracked by hon. Members who are lawyers.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)

I am not a lawyer.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

§ Mr. Dickens

If the hon. Lady had listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), she would have realised that he made it perfectly clear to all those right hon. and hon. Members who were listening that the Bill did not change the definition of obscenity. In fact, we rely absolutely upon the original definition in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I do not understand how the hon. Lady can say that to the House.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I had not realised which hon. Member was muttering.

The Bill changes the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which specifically exempts any material shown on television or broadcast on radio from the operation of the statutory test of obscenity. The Bill includes television and sound broadcasting, although proceedings would be taken only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That does not apply in other obscenity Acts.

§ Mr. Churchill

Again the hon. Lady cannot have been listening to what I said. That applies to the cinema. For that reason, I thought fit to interpose the DPP in the case of television.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. The old British Board of Film Censors, now the British Board of Film Classification, can continue to exist only provided that it makes it clear to everyone that it is not a censor. That is the central reason for its existence. It has always made it clear that it exists to classify material. If it classifies material in such a way that it cannot be shown in Britain, that does not prevent the material from being produced or from being shown under certain conditions. However, the board has made it clear that it does not censor scripts or films.

§ Mr. Buchan

The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) does not understand the problem or his own Bill, which changes the definition when it states that the following list of things shall be deemed to be obscene. The previous definition was that there had to be proof of its depraving and corrupting nature. That is a major change in the definition.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

The test of obscenity has always been one of effect depending upon the circumstances of the publication. The Bill grafts on to that provision a different test of absolute obscenity which can be additionally and alternatively applicable in various cases.

What frightens me about the Bill is that the written word is excluded. Presumably one could describe all sorts of things that would not be caught by the Bill. The worries of the hon. Member for Davyhulme have been described by him in highly subjective terms. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) constantly referred to sheer filth. One man's sheer filth can be another man's boring and irritating material. The film "Sebastiane" has already been mentioned. It was programmed extremely late at night. I watched half a reel, but I was so incredibly bored that I switched off my television set.

We must have a sense of proportion about the programming of material on television and material that is available on the bookstalls. I have received letters from constituents who are newsagents and who are extremely careful about how they organise their displays. They believe that they would be put in a difficult position because of the extraordinarily wide wording of the Bill. Their worries are real. If the displays have been carefully arranged so that the average young person has difficulty in reaching any material that can be regarded as obscene, the newsagents have taken all sensible precautions. However, the hon. Member for Davyhulme says that his definition is acceptable. If a person under the age of 18 could have access to obscene material, the newsagent is brought within the scope of the legislation. What the hon. Gentleman is doing is dangerous and discriminatory.

§ Mr. Cash

The hon. Lady's constituency borders on mine. There is no evidence in my constituency that anyone would wish to have that type of material available. I hope that the same applies in her constituency.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Since we are all playing this game, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. Various newsagents in my constituency have written to me saying that the wording of the Bill is so defective that they can see themselves being put at risk. I repeat that, because I believe that it is important.

I am deeply worried that, because of the highly emotive terms of the legislation, the hon. Member for Davyhulme is seeking to pander to the worst type of prejudice, and the Bill will not achieve his real aims.

There is much published material that lends itself to the degradation of women. I do not care for nudity in the daily newspapers. The extraordinary physiques that are produced with the aid of silicones and other strangely artificial substances are not attractive. If page 2 was to consist entirely of nude males, many hon. Members would be terribly shocked and would constantly complain in the House that the newspapers had abandoned all sense of decency and had no intention of maintaining the best 570 standards of family life. There is no more reason to look at naked females than there is to look at naked males. They are at a similar level of pulchritude.

Under the guise of protecting children, we could be producing legislation that will not work. That is my real complaint against the Bill. It has been born out of prejudice and fostered by bad law and even by bad advice. The Bill will not be discussed in terms that are important for those who care about broadcast or published material. I believe that, because of the number of hours of broadcasting and the amount of material that is put out, mistakes will be made in the broadcasting community. There is no group of human beings who always have a delicate nuance of taste so that they will not make mistakes or produce programmes that are not offensive to someone.

By ignoring violence, in the broadest sense, the Bill could give the impression that violence was perfectly acceptable. That is the most worrying aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will not be accepted. I believe that it is extraordinarily badly drawn. The hon. Member for Davyhulme has not set at rest any of my objections, but he has confirmed my view that the Bill owes more to the need for artificial moral outrage than a genuine desire to improve the legislation. The Bill is a bad piece of writing, and I hope that the House will throw it out.

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

I give my wholehearted support to the Bill and I am proud to have sponsored it. So far in the debate we have not heard enough about the great difference between television as a medium of communication and, for example, page 3 of The Sun. Television comes into people's sitting rooms and, as such, is acceptable to children from an early age.

As someone who worked closely with children before entering Parliament and who tried to understand how they build up a view of the world, I believe that what they see on television is as important as what their parents or grandparents do. It is a combination of the visual and the spoken word.

Earlier this week, hon. Members saw episodes from the films "Jubilee" and "Sebastiane". It was deeply shocking that, despite the guidelines and assurances by the broadcasting authorities, those films were shown on television, albeit late at night. I entirely reject any suggestion that children will not see programmes that are broadcast late at night. Anyone who has been responsible for children knows that they often come downstairs late at night because they wake up and are afraid. If they enter a sitting room where such frightening programmes are on television, it can only be deeply damaging to them. What appears on page 3 of The Sun may not be to everyone's taste, but they are fairly friendly pictures—

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg

Positively cuddly, really.

§ Mrs. Bottomley

I could not have said it better myself.

Some television programmes are deeply depraved and meaningless. They undermine people's moral structure and they leave children with a deep sense of confusion about the world.

Not only children but many people who live alone, perhaps in an alienated and unhappy state, can be affected. As hon. Members, we are the least well placed to comment on television programmes, because we—

§ Mr. Brinton

My hon. Friend spoke feelingly about the effect of television programmes on children. Some 571 years ago, one of my children—who was then five years old—exhibited similar problems with an episode of "Dr. Who". Does she wish to include "Dr. Who" in the embraces of the Bill?

§ Mrs. Bottomley

I am bemused by the suggestion that, because the Bill does not cover everything, it should be rejected. It is only a first step. "Dr. Who" has a wide audience, and far be it from me to alienate many of my constituents by saying that they should be deprived of the programme. But that does not undermine the rationale of the Bill, which is to extend the Obscene Publications Act to cover broadcasting on television and to list the specific acts which should be outlawed. I feel more strongly about broadcasting than about magazines. Of course, it is a good idea to remove them from bookshops where they are easily available, but the widespread outcry is about television.

We have had promises that the guidelines will be reviewed and implemented. For the most part, our broadcasting authorities are splendid. However, on this point, hon. Members are constantly approached by parents, teachers and the clergy, who say, "Why is there such an appalling diet of obscenity and violence on television?" Of course, the Bill does not deal with violence.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

Does the hon. Lady consider that the "A Team", which conveys the impression that violence is acceptable because people are subjected to extreme attacks and then get up and walk away, is an acceptable form of television? If she does, can she tell us what is acceptable about that violence but not other forms of violence? I am trying hard to understand what she is worried about. She is not making herself as clear as she might.

§ Mrs. Bottomley

If when the hon. Lady has the good fortune to introduce a private Member's Bill she wishes to draft legislation on violence, I shall undoubtedly support her. The point about the Bill is that vicious cruelty has been specified for the first time. I accept the difficulties of making definitions, and I applaud my hon. Friend for trying to restrict the list.

§ Mr. Buchan

Does the hon. Lady realise that this would prevent the showing of "King Lear", that is a play by Shakespeare?

§ Mrs. Bottomley

I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement that, in Committee, he would be happy to introduce an amendment to allow the broadcasting of programmes for artistic, historic, educational or scientific purposes. Of course, there must be exceptions.

Hon. Members who oppose the Bill deeply misunderstand the mood of the country. There is widespread anxiety and unhappiness about the fact that television shows a diet of programmes which offers children and their families the worst examples of behaviour.

§ Ms. Clare Short

I agree with the hon. Lady that there is widespread anxiety in the country about the amount of violence on television. I also believe that many people object to page 3 of The Sun. However, it is wrong for the sponsors of the Bill to pretend that it will deal with the matter that causes that widespread anxiety. It is not good enough to say, "There is anxiety, so we shall throw a defective piece of legislation at it," because that will not deal with the matters which really worry people.

§ Mrs. Bottomley

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I do not share her view.

572 I believe that this is an important Bill which I hope will begin to redress the balance. For too long, we have emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and under-emphasised our responsibility to the young, the vulnerable and the susceptible in our care. From the previous census returns, we discovered that twice as many people lived on their own. Increasingly, people live alone and are fearful. Many television programmes show sadistic attacks on women, which arouse the fears of many women who live alone. They also fuel the worst instincts in those with vulnerable personalities. All of us must be worried about the increasing number of crimes, especially sexual crimes. It is ludicrous to believe that, with such a constant diet on television, we are not inflaming people's worst instincts and desensitising them.

In "1984", George Orwell recognised the importance of communicating through big brother on the screen in people's homes. We are only beginning to come to terms with the problem. Since nearly all households have television sets, it is essential for the public good that action is taken now to improve what is seen in people's homes. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

I wish to deal with some of the confusion that is apparent among the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and some of those who support the Bill. First, this is bad legislation, principally because it does not understand the problems with which it is supposed to deal. That makes it unhelpful. Secondly, those of us who recognise that there is a serious problem are among those who criticise the Bill. Those of us who have been involved in this area know that it is a bad Bill. I do not attribute wrong motives to the hon. Gentleman, and I say nothing about electoral advantage, but if he had been seriously worried about the problem he would have dealt with it a little more intelligently.

I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) about violence, but when questions are asked in an attempt to place the matter in a broader context it is not enough to say, "That should be left to another Bill", or, "Do not criticise this Bill because it deals with only one aspect." The Bill is bad from beginning to end and will not solve the problem. A long time ago—longer ago than I care to think—I was given the task by the Educational Institute of Scotland of analysing the many horror comics that were being published at the time. Within 48 hours, by approaching two classes in a secondary school, I had literally hundreds of such comics. I came out of the first two months of examination sick and horrified. The children who gave those comics to me were not in the least bit affected as I had been affected. Therefore, there is nothing new in the portrayal of horror and violence directed at young people for profit. Incidentally, profit can often come under the heading of obscenity.

§ Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a profound difference between the written word and what appears on television? I am talking largely about children under five who cannot read. They are beginning to understand reality and how the world works. They do not discriminate between what they see on television and what happens in their family. The comic stage comes much later in their development.

§ Mr. Buchan

I wish that the hon. Lady would not preach to us. We know the problems. Some of us have been involved with them closely. We do not like to be told that two and two make four. Those horror comics were visual. I was not stressing how healthy the children who read them were compared to me—that was a passing point. I have no doubt that they had an effect on the children. For one thing, they gave them a kind or pre-sexual shock before they reached sexual maturity.

I remember one particular example of a horrifying set of visual images. A business man was portrayed making a trip to south America. He distrusted his wife because she happened to be beautiful, so he locked her in the cellar before he left, with a plentiful supply of food, so that no man could get near her before he returned. His plane crashed in the jungle and he took a year to get back, terrified that he might find his wife dead. The last picture showed him dashing down the steps saying, "Thank goodness you are alive, dear." She said, "Thank goodness you have arrived. I was beginning to think that I was turning into a vole." They embraced and suddenly he saw to his horror that she had turned into a vole. I cannot express the bestiality of that particular picture, so I know what we are talking about.

When I see some of the apostles of morality in the House, I reach for my chastity belt. We see a parade of morality from people who have not necessarily always behaved with the best of morality. It may be that they are trying to achieve an inner cleanliness by supporting such a Bill; that they feel that they will somehow recover a kind of purity—a restoration of virginity.

I should have thought that clause 2 would almost be subject to the charge of obscenity. Hon. Members seem to take pleasure in listing such obscene phrases as acts of masturbation, sodomy, oral-genital connection and oral-anal connection. Come to think of it, there is an old word for oral-anal connection which is often used in politics. They take a certain pleasure in this, which I find detestable.

§ Mr. Churchill

Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the acts that he has read out should be put over on television?

§ Mr. Buchan

The filthiest piece of film that I have ever seen was at a Scottish amateur film festival. Incidentally, Scotland is excluded from the Bill. We shall not be protected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to answer the question, exactly and precisely in my own way, which is more than the hon. Gentleman did in replying to questions.

The filthiest film that I have ever seen was the portrayal at a Scottish amateur film festival of a film of nothing but a pair of hands writhing in total silence for seven minutes. The audience was on edge in an acute state of erotically aroused embarrassment.

The listing of a number of examples like this does not deal with their effect upon children and others. What is important is the intention of the craftsman or member within the whole context. The worst of all possible films could escape, while the examples used here could be portrayed in such a way that, instead of arousing disgust and horror, they would be an essential part of arousing compassion, yet they would be caught by the Bill. That is particularly true with reference to vicious cruelty.

Under the Bill, vicious cruelty towards animals could not be portrayed. and a film backing up an appeal for an 574 animal charity, for example, could not be shown. Films dealing with the act of war could not be portrayed. If we had had daily television during the first world war showing the carnage and vicious cruelty that occurred, that war would not have gone on for four years. That portrayal of vicious cruelty would have aroused compassion. If one war was stopped by television, it was a war of the most vicious cruelty—the war in Vietnam. It was its portrayal that brought about the end of that war. I wish that the hon. Member for Davyhulme would grow up and think about what he is doing.

§ Mr. Cash

The hon. Gentleman is making some ridiculous allegations. He clearly has not read the Bill and the provision which clearly states: Proceedings for an offence under this section … shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that the Director of Public Prosecutions would take action in the instance that he has just mentioned, he needs to have his head examined.

§ Mr. Buchan

Perhaps we should have a simple Bill which says that all problems of obscenity will be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill tells the public prosecutor how he should act. That is the function of legislation, because if it is not, legality is completely arbitrary. Honestly, the inadequacy of thought of the hon. Member for Davyhulme appals me.

§ Ms. Clare Short

Conservative Members keep trying to correct Labour Members, but they keep misrepresenting the Bill. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required in matters of television, but in all other areas his consent is not required. Therefore, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is wrong.

§ Mr. Jackson

The Bill leaves in place section 4 of the 1959 Act, which provides the defence of public good, covering all the cases that the hon. Gentleman cites. The hon. Gentleman is trying to be philosophical, but he reminds me of what Burke said about those philosophers who "subtilize themselves into savagery".

§ Mr. Buchan

I am not sure whether I got all the words, but I think that it was the hon. Gentleman who intervened on the best and the good, failing to understand that our criticism of the Bill is based not only on the fact that it deals with some aspects and not all, but that it destroys the present basis of law, including the basis of control that we have over the broadcasting authority and extends it irrespective of intent or anything else.

I wish that the ex-Solicitor-General would stop shaking his head. He made quite a good speech. It was by far the best speech from a Conservative Member. I sympathise with him, but he knows that it is the context in which something is done or shown that really matters.

§ Sir Ian Percival

I deplore interventions, because I like to hear hon. Members make their speeches, but I must regard that as an invitation either to accept or deny what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am bound to say that I do not accept it. I deny it. He is talking a lot of rubbish.

§ Mr. Buchan

I am told from behind that that is a compliment, and I think that it is. We are dealing with serious issues, and I should not allow myself to be sidetracked.

§ Sir Ian Percival

I did not mean to be as offensive as I might have sounded in an effort to be brief. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with great intellectual questions, but the Bill, as I tried to point out, deals with only one aspect of an enormous problem—filth and getting rid of it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is denying that there is filth and that we should get rid of it.

§ Mr. Buchan

I am receiving so much advice from all sides that I am not sure that I have taken it all on board. With private Members' Bills one can take only a small aspect, because they cannot deal with the generality. That is not the case with this Bill, because it is changing the definition of obscenity, among other things. It is laying down a fresh set of laws when a structure of control, practised over the years, already exists. We are dealing with a major issue.

The Bill ignores the main problem because the hon. Member for Davyhulme has not understood the main problem. The main problem of the horror comics to which I referred was not isolated to the picture that I described, but was about desensitising. The real problem is not the display of male genitals, or the display of vicious cruelty, but the context in which those things are set.

The problem that we are facing with violence and obscenity is that to which I have referred. Someone quoted me as using the term "constant drip", but I did not use that term. The desensitising goes on because of the constancy, not because of a specific and horrific act which can frighten or disturb someone. It results from the deadening of awareness through continual careless violence. It is the careless violence of the American pulp serials — car crashes, easy mugging, batterings and so on—that leads to desensitising. A single act of horror can create a more alert and aware community which will react against it rather than for it.

Continual desensitising and betrayal are caused by cheap material, produced and financed by the people whom Conservative Members represent. They are driving to bring such