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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course completely correct to set out that distinction. As I suggested earlier, some of the most controversial questions have to do with age classification. In some cases, the BBFC has been too strict and should have been more liberal. Let me give an example. I went to see ““Sweeney Todd””, Tim Burton's new film, which is very good. It is a musical, but it contains gore and shows people having their throat cut, although it is a fairly unrealistic depiction. The BBFC decided that the film should be rated 18. I have a son who is just about to turn 15, and I would have no qualms about allowing him to see that film. I think that it would be perfectly acceptable for it to be a 15. On the other hand, I went to see ““The Last King of Scotland””, which was rated 15, but which in my view should probably have been an 18. All of us will argue about where the line should be drawn, and probably everybody will have different views. One should be aware that there are big issues at stake when deciding where to draw the line. The certification of a film can have a considerable impact not only on the amount of revenue that it makes, but on public expectation and people's desire to see that film. One of the films that led to the greatest number of complaints to the BBFC last year was ““Casino Royale””, which contains some gritty, violent scenes. I am thinking of two in particular: a scene where Bond is tortured sitting naked on a chair; and a graphic fight scene right at the start of the film.