British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill

That is true, but that veto has never been exercised in practice, and as there are no hearings, it is very unlikely that it would be. The Bill would get it out into the open, and the hon. Gentleman will hear some more reasons in a moment why we need to do that. In his statement to the House on constitutional reform last July, the Prime Minister announced:"““The House of Commons should also have a bigger role in the selection of key public officials. I propose, as a first step, pre-appointment hearings for public officials whose role it is to protect the public's rights and interests””.—[Official Report, 7 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 816.]" For convenience, I shall deal next with clause 3, which gives a similar power of veto to the Home Affairs Committee over the BBFC's guidelines. They are the guidelines that the BBFC's examiners work to and they are available on its website. Let us be in no doubt at all that the guidelines have been progressively liberalised. If we compare the guidelines for 2005 with those of five years earlier, the differences are striking. For example, the guidelines in 2000 for videos rated at 15 said:"““There may be no emphasis on the use of easily accessible lethal weapons (in particular, knives).””" In 2005, that was watered down to:"““Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised.””" Crucially, all reference to knives was removed from the guidelines in 2005. There have been a string of films portraying knife attacks since then, and we have also seen a large growth in knife crime. I am not suggesting that the two are cause and effect, but I believe the one to be a factor. Similarly, to give one more example, the BBFC's 2000 guidelines for 12-rated videos said:"““Dangerous techniques…should contain no imitable detail.””" In 2005, however, the guidelines said:"““Dangerous techniques…should not dwell on imitable detail””." In videos, people can dwell as much as they like, whatever their age, and there is lots of evidence that children play again and again even quite short clips that they find intriguing. Amazingly, the BBFC's own polling conducted in 2004, shortly before the 2005 guidelines were issued—it was conducted by TNS Media, a reputable body—showed that a clear two-to-one majority among those in the public who had an opinion believed that too much violence was allowed into films for those two age bands. That poll was properly conducted by a reputable polling organisation. The BBFC did not like the outcome, so it went off and conducted an online poll—in fact, we can follow the paper trial through its own documents. In its consultation document, the BBFC admitted to directing people, including"““people active in the film industry””," to the website survey. The results were, of course, unsurprising. In the new online survey, which was not properly conducted, only 13 per cent. of respondents thought that the standards of violence in the guidelines were not strict enough. Sadly, the BBFC chose to follow its own cooked web poll and watered down standards on, for example, knife crime, instead of following the poll that it had commissioned from a reputable organisation. More recent surveys record even more startling results. Media Watch, the campaigning organisation, whose work I strongly commend, commissioned an independent survey by CommunicateResearch, another top independent polling organisation. If any hon. Member goes to CommunicateResearch's website when they leave the Chamber—they will not do so, I hope, before I finish—they will see the top item: the research it published yesterday showing that 76 per cent. of people support the tighter regulation of violence in films and games, and on TV; that 68 per cent. believe such violence to be linked to actual violent crimes; and that 80 per cent. believe that the BBFC process for approving films should be transparent and accountable to Parliament. That—to return to the query that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised—is why we need greater accountability to Parliament. Currently, only the industry can appeal against a ruling by the BBFC, either to restore cut material or to lower a classification. No appeal from anybody else is allowed. Appeals are currently handled in the BBFC by the supposedly independent appeals committee. The last violent video game to be rejected before ““Manhunt 2””—““Carmageddon””, which was rejected in 1997—was released after its makers employed an expensive Queen's counsel on the appeal. It may be argued that there have to be limits on appeals because otherwise there might be a vast number of them. In Australia, any single member of the public can appeal to a genuinely independent appeal body, but all my Bill asks is that if 50 MPs sign an early-day motion as a result of public concern, it should trigger an appeal. No one is suggesting that MPs should be directly involved. I do not want direct political interference; we just want accountability, so that an independent body will look at the matter if there is a lot of public concern. Clause 2 proposes that the BBFC be required to keep a list of volunteers from whom a jury of 12 should be randomly selected to hear each appeal. It also proposes to limit the service of the panel from which juries are selected; it is time-limited to prevent panellists from becoming case-hardened. Incidentally, it is a crucial feature of Australian law that everyone involved in the process is time-limited.