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

From the Front Bench, my right hon. Friend says yes. So, we have a powerful policing mechanism over the BBFC. Again I return to the basic point of the debate. The hon. Member for Canterbury, who has left the Chamber, has come up with a jury concept for his Bill, but I simply ask him to reflect on this point. When the public were surveyed in 2005, they were asked about not only the standards and guidelines, but their experience of how those were operating, because that is what they go by. In relation to sex, in 2000, 54 per cent. thought that the standards and guidelines were about right, but that figure had gone up to 58 per cent. in 2004. Roughly a third thought that the guidelines were not strict enough. On violence, in 2004, 53 per cent. thought that they were about right and 41 per cent. thought that they were not strict enough. The figures on language and on drugs were similar. The point I want to make about those figures is that they show that society is divided on the issue. I am concerned that today's debate, during which we have got quite angry about these awful things, is not reflecting that. If we had a jury system and if a jury were to be properly reflective of society—this brings me to the point that I made in my first intervention on the hon. Member for Canterbury—we would inevitably end up with hung juries of one sort or another, because presumably, juries would fail to agree on the guidelines, as indicated by the proportions and the views expressed in that survey of 11,000 people. There is a real problem here. In relation to what are, effectively, differences of subjective view, Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol say in their book:"““The central irony of the courtroom crusade—what might be termed 'the Spycatcher effect'—is always present: seek to suppress a book by legal action [in Spycatcher, the Government actually sued for breach of confidence] because it tends to corrupt, and the publicity attendant on its trial will spread that assumed corruption far more effectively than its quiet distribution. Lady Chatterley's Lover sold three million copies in the three months following its prosecution in 1961. The last work of literature to be prosecuted for obscenity in a full-blooded Old Bailey trial was an undistinguished paperback entitled Inside Linda Lovelace.””" That had the same effect. That is why, unlike other hon. Members, I have refrained from referring by title to any of the obscene materials that we have discussed today: I do not want to be accused of giving undue publicity in this debate to all those horrible things. We need to consider what the BBFC's process provides for. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North whether he had read the guidelines; I wonder whether all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken so far have read them as well. I have a copy here, and they are pretty tight. The guidelines provide detailed instructions on the submission for classification of films and videos, and the details take account of the differing natures of the media. The guidelines start from these basic questions:"““—is the material in conflict with the law?""—is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful?""—is the material, at the age group concerned, clearly unacceptable to broad public opinion?””" The BBFC tries to reflect public opinion in its procedure, and the legal considerations, particularly in relation to videos, require it to have special regard to the likelihood that the work will be viewed at home, and to any harm to those likely to view the video or to society from the behaviour of viewers afterwards. In considering those issues, the board has in mind the possible effect not only on children but on other vulnerable people. The Video Recordings Act 1984 also requires special regard to"““(a) criminal behaviour;""(b) illegal drugs;""(c) violent behaviour or incidents;""(d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or""(e) human sexual activity””," so the BBFC takes those things into account. As I have mentioned, the board also takes into account the Cinematographic Films (Animals) Act 1937, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the obscene publications Acts and the Licensing Act 2003, which has additional requirements dealing with public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It starts from the basic premise from which any free society should start that"““adults should as far as possible be free to choose what they see, providing that it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful to society””." I hope that everybody in the House would agree that that should be the basic premise on which we proceed, as well as the premise that"““works should be allowed to reach the widest audience that is appropriate for their theme and treatment””." However, of course,"““the context in which something (e.g. sex or violence) is presented is central to the question of its acceptability””." Obviously, some things will be on the border between 18 and R18, but the BBFC says:"““Classification decisions may be stricter on video, DVD and digital works than on film. This is because of the increased possibility of under-age viewing recognised in the Video Recordings Act, and of works being replayed or viewed out of context. Accordingly, a work may occasionally receive a higher age classification than on film, or require new or different cuts.””"