House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Apr 1993

Column 574

which films can now be recorded off air and copied, the growth in cottage industries supplying hard-core videotapes is likely to be considerable.

That recording facility also makes it inevitable that, while the source material may be encrypted, children are likely to be able to see films that are, by any sensible standards, highly unsuitable even for adult viewing. One of my constituents complained recently that her children--on whom she keeps a watchful parental eye--had come back after playing with friends whom she had regarded as perfectly respectable, using bad language and describing scenes that they had witnessed on a videotape that they had been allowed to watch in someone else's house.

For all those reasons, I--together with many colleagues on both sides of the House--have pressed for Government action to end the Red Hot television service and other channels like it. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the recent announcement of their intention to try to proscribe the channel ; I hope and believe that they will be successful should the matter come before the European courts. I believe that a great deal is at stake. If we are not able to regulate what is broadcast to the United Kingdom by satellite--however abhorrent that material may be--not only will more channels spring up, but pressure will grow for still more deregulation of our domestic television service. Whatever lack of proof the experts may claim for any link between at least some of society's ills and the prevalence of gratuitous violence, bad language and explicit sex on television, common sense tells me that the decline in standards can and does affect the behaviour and attitudes not just of young people but of all of us.

I believe that not only the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the House of Commons and even society but the programme makers themselves are coming to recognise that great scrutiny needs to be given to scripts and pictures to justify what is shown on the screen. At such a time, it would be a sad and dreadful irony if through transfrontier broadcasting, which may yet offer humanity so much, the floodgates were opened to a tide of filth and violence.

8.46 pm

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : I join others in congratulating all who have spoken on the seriousness and depth of their speeches. My contribution will be very short.

Like other hon. Members, I am entirely opposed to the idea of censorship ; equally, I believe that we must protect our children from the worst excesses of any possible medium. I do not wish to touch on what I regard as a separate issue--that of hard-core pornography--but I shall speak about the general diet of television, which other hon. Members have described as becoming increasingly violent, and about the lowering of standards.

My main point is this. I think it entirely wrong for society to blame one aspect for all its ills. The problem with television is that, because competition has become increasingly fierce and because the possibility of revenues from advertising, for example, has become smaller and smaller, programme makers are under incredible pressure to limit the amount of programme time between advertisements. In my experience of playing in live theatre, what has become increasingly noticeable over the past few years is audiences' inability to sustain concentration, and

Column 575

to equate conflicting points of view, for any longer than would, in domestic terms, constitute the time before the first commercial break.

At present, pressures on the medium itself mean that pressures on the programme makers who are at the behest of ratings--because if the ratings are not high enough, the possibility of selling their programmes with sufficient advertising space becomes increasingly small--are becoming stronger and stronger. Many years ago, I had a conversation with the vice- president responsible for daytime television programming. When I asked him why television in America was so appalling, he said, "You misunderstand the nature of the medium. Television is not about entertainment ; it is a marketplace." That is what we are suffering from here, because of deregulation. The pressure on programme makers is not to make quality programmes, but to sandwich advertisements.

If we, as people, are being programmed to sustain and concentrate on smaller and smaller pieces of programmes, our requirement to be stimulated to watch beyond the next advertising break--to pick up the programme again- -means that programme makers are continually leaving us on the edge of a cliff. That is their whole purpose : they must retain us beyond the commercial break, because if we are not there, the next commercial break will not be there the next time around. The decay in television has come about because what was a great bulwark against cheapening pressures--the security that the industry as a whole could place in the solidity of the BBC, which, at that time, was not under commercial pressure--is being eroded. That has happened in America. It is a model for what television will become in the rest of the world.

I agree absolutely that there are unacceptable programmes and that not everybody exercises the right kind of control over their children's viewing, but it would be entirely wrong to blame television for the increase in violence or for the decay in our moral standards.

8.58 pm

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his choice of topic and in particular on the impeccable timing of the debate that he has won.

As the House heard from those who have contributed to this short debate, there is continuing concern about violence on the screens in our homes--not least, I suspect, because of still-rising levels of crime which cause growing concern among the public and a demand for more effective action to prevent and combat it. It is important, however, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, to put concerns about television violence in context. It is the purpose for which it is portrayed--its nature and quality--which matters. Violence is an integral part of, for example, many of Shakespeare's plays, reflecting the violent times in which the events described are set, so Shakespeare's violence is in context--a dark part of those times--and not violence simply for the sake of it. Concern among viewers about violence is remarkably even across the years. That is no surprise perhaps, for people react differently to the same circumstances. In its recent survey, the Independent Television Commission's "Television : The Public's View" records that 70 out of every 100 viewers of commercial television found nothing

Column 576

offensive about programmes, with 72 out of every 100 saying the same about Channel 4, but 11 out of every 100 viewers cited violence as a source of offence. Unfortunately, these complaints are not broken down into programme strands, so we do not know whether it was the harrowing scenes of violence from the former Yugoslavia in news bulletins or the violence in drama or works of fiction that caused offence.

As David Glencross, the distinguished chief executive of the ITC, comments :

"What we are seeing is a public revulsion against violence in society which is feeding through to a desire for greater sensitivity by television programme-makers and makers of films and videos." He added :

"Members of the Commission expect programme-makers and TV companies to take full account of that concern."

As my hon. Friend and others acknowledge, there is no evidence to sustain any charge that our screens are awash with violence, or that programme makers and television companies are indifferent to public concerns, but in no way should that lead to complacency. The broadcasters need to continue to demonstrate that they both acknowledge and respond to public concern over violence on our screens.

The broadcasting industry has more regulation and codes of practice than any other part of the media. I might add that, had the newspapers taken more account of them, they might now be held in higher esteem. The BBC's producers' guidelines are a good example. A section on violence in programmes opens this way :

"There is much confusing and inconclusive research into violence on television and society. While it may not be possible to establish the nature of any relationship, it is prudent to assume there may be one."

No one can properly criticise that approach. It is one which is matched by other broadcasters and the regulators.

The Broadcasting Standards Council--no one's favourite body--offers an important warning in its code of practice. It says :

"There is an initial distinction to be made between reporting and reflection in programmes of real-life violence and the use of violent actions as elements in entertainment programmes."

The BSC published a monograph called "A measure of uncertainty : the effects of the mass media" by Dr. Guy Cumberbatch, director of the communications research group at Birmingham's Aston university, and Dr. Dennis Howitt, senior lecturer in social psychology at Loughborough university. They conclude :

"The facts surrounding the debate"--

the debate on how the media affects people--

"are impressive : over the past 10 years, 2,000 studies have scrutinised the impact of the media and 1,000 projects have researched the relationship between television and violence. What we don't know (about the effects of the media) is probably more important than what we do know."

That reflects the sensible caution in the BBC producers' guidelines.

The ITC survey also tells us--a point that was made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)--that more people, watching the commercial channels and the two BBC channels, are more offended by bad language than violence--that 17 out of every 100 ITV viewers find bad language to be more of a reason to complain, that 14 out of every 100 BBC1 viewers feel the same, and that that number falls to 11 out of every 100 BBC2 viewers.

Column 577

The British Film Institute has published a book called "Women Viewing Violence", based on research commissioned by the BSC and carried out among women who had had direct experience of violence and those who had not. The book's authors refer to

"women's concern that televised violence against women be portrayed realistically and sensitively and used to effect some postive outcome, such as public education or crime prevention".

It might have been expected that women--especially those who had themselves been victims of violence--would be more strongly against the portrayal of violence in any form than men, but the finding suggests that they accept it as a fact and as an unpleasant part of life. If it is to be done, they want it to be done in a realistic manner.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : The implication of the research is that violence does not worry people nearly so much as does bad language in the form of expletives. In some programmes, language can be extremely violent in another way, and much more frightening. With regard to women, my concern has more to do with the more realistic, sadistic violence that is portrayed in movies, which are then produced in video form and thrown in to our homes.

Mr. Corbett : I accept that absolutely. As with much of this research, one does not know exactly which programmes are being looked at. In any event, bad language and realistic violence often go together. The distinction is perhaps not wholly sensible. Most concern among viewers is caused by films and videos that are strong on gratuitous violence--what I shall call the Michael Winner effect. I took particular exception to Winner's "Death Wish", as it seemed to me that its sole purpose was to smother the screen with as much blood and gore as Charles Bronson could achieve. Then, to raise a bit more cash from this exploitation of violence, came "Death Wish II". More recently, the Independent Television Commission has expressed concern about real crimes that become the subjects of drama documentaries such as "Suspicious Circumstances" and Michael Winner's "True Crimes" and "Crime Story".

It is interesting that when Clint Eastwood--himself no stranger to screen violence--collected this week his two Oscars for his film "The Unforgiven", he argued strongly that it is not a violent film, as violence is used to overcome greater violence. That is another concept, and I have to confess to having seen "The Dirty Dozen" and "The Magnificent Seven" many times on the same grounds.

The jury is out on the question whether rising crime in our daily lives is simply reflected in what we see on television or whether what we see on television, in some way and among some people, helps to encourage crime. But we should also remember that the people of this country lived in times more violent even than these, a century or more ago, when television had not been invented. Certainly there is a need for more and continuing research into the effect of the portrayal of violence in news, drama, fiction and other television programme strands, not least for its possible impact on young and forming minds. It may well be a question which can never be completely answered, but all of us, including the programme makers, have a strong duty to ensure that proper sensitivity is always shown in the portrayal of violence on television and in films and videos.

Column 578

I confess to doubts about the impact of what is shown on our screens on those who watch it. There must be some effect, or advertisers would not spend millions of pounds with ITV and Channel 4 trying to persuade us to buy their products. But again, the success of advertisements may have more to do with the way in which they are done for the purpose of achieving what is wanted by those paying for them. As Dr. Cumberbatch and Dr. Howitt observe,

"research which has examined audiences is rarely able to demonstrate clear effects of the mass media."

They also make a further contribution to this complicated debate. They state that

"market forces inevitably mean that the media cannot stray too far from audience interest"

and that the perceived problems are caused not by television alone but by many factors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said. They add :

"Isolating the unique contribution that television makes to problems such as racism and sexism, which are deeply embedded in our cultures, is exceedingly difficult."

Perhaps we should give the last word to Mr. John Birt, the director general of the BBC, who, in his Fleming memorial lecture to the Royal Television Society this week, gave this pledge :

"We can ensure that our programmes do not promote cruelty and violence. We will do nothing to encourage anyone to think there is kudos or status to be earned by inflicting pain and damage to another human being."

I hope that that pledge will be endorsed by all other programme makers and broadcasters.

9.10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) for giving the House an opportunity to consider this important issue. I congratulate him on the way that he opened the debate. His contribution has been followed by a number of thoughtful and well informed speeches, but he started the ball rolling, and our thanks are due to him. All my comments will bear on what he said. I have known of his sensitive approach to the subject since I served with him some years ago on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. His interest is of long standing. I know from the correspondence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received that the issue of broadcasting standards troubles many people. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made a speech born of great experience ; it was also the speech of a father. He mentioned Red Hot Television. I can say only that it has been granted leave to apply for judicial review. We believe our position to be correct, and we shall defend our action vigorously. The matter is now before the courts, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment further at this stage.

Violence on the news has also been mentioned. It is a subject that alarms many parents, who believe that even the "Six O'Clock News" and earlier news broadcasts can sometimes be very frightening and can make a deep impression. I am drawn to the BBC producers' guidelines on real life violence in the news :

"There is a balance to be struck between the demands of truth and the danger of desensitising the audience. With some news stories a sense of shock is part of a full understanding of what has happened. But the more often viewers are shocked, the more it will take to shock them."

Column 579

That is the type of detailed guidance which the BBC gives to producers and which the ITC gives to other television companies. It would be wrong to assume that everyone who works in television is dedicated to the pursuit of violence. I know that that is not the case, and I do not believe that any hon. Member or anyone outside the House thinks it is.

I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in a speech also born of great experience of working in a number of media. I do not blame television for all our ills, any more than I blame politicians or teachers, who seem to be the other whipping boys or girls. She said that there was pressure--not only commercial pressure--on programme makers from many quarters.

If I could introduce a lighter note to our proceedings, I must say that I have always thought that, however boring a programme, it is almost worth waiting for the adverts, which tend to be of a higher standard and which, if I am not mistaken, are a rather important source of revenue for actors who are otherwise resting. We should not simply dismiss the art form of advertisements, of which I am quite fond.

I also do not quite agree with the hon. Lady that commercial pressure always leads to lower quality. In fact, one could argue the reverse. A number of commercial enterprises on television have led to very high standards. One thinks, for example, of Channel 4's involvement in commissioning films, not least its involvement with "Howard's End". There are many examples of good, too, coming out of commercial pressure. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Lady's point. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made a thoughtful speech, which stole many of my best lines--not, I dare say, for the last time, although I shall always seek to be there ahead of him. He, too, talked about the problem of violence and the contradiction involving the use of television as a powerful advertising medium. The argument is that, if television is powerful enough to attract enormous amounts of money as an advertising medium, we cannot at the same time be told that it does not affect the personality or character of those who watch it.

I thought back to the remarkable study on the problem of violence carried out by Will Wyatt for the BBC. In considering that issue, he said :

"There is the argument that broadcasters cannot claim television works as an advertising medium and at the same time claim that television violence has no effect. But television adverts are radically different from programmes in that they give persuasive messages about a particular product. They are designed to raise awareness of that item's existence and are expressly aimed at making the product attractive. They are also part of a complex selling strategy mix, including marketing, promotion and pricing. Television programmes, on the other hand, are not desino effect, merely that the advertising analogy is false."

I am much drawn to that argument.

I shall now make my own case, before referring to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). First, I want to remind the House of the regulatory position for television in this country. Responsibility for what is broadcast rests with the broadcasting regulatory bodies and, of course, with the broadcasters themselves. The regulatory bodies--the BBC

Column 580

governors, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and S4C--are independent of Government and are responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. Indeed, they must lay their annual reports before the House.

It is a long-established principle--and a good one--that Ministers do not seek to intervene in the day-to-day content or scheduling of programmes. Our whole regulatory framework is based on that arm's-length approach. Freedom from Government intervention in the media is an essential component of a democratic society.

The Broadcasting Act 1990 has created a clear framework within which the independent broadcasters will operate with regard to broadcasting standards. Section 6 puts a clear statutory duty on the ITC to ensure that every licensed service includes nothing in its 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".

Similar provisions are contained in the annex to the BBC's licence and agreement.

It was precisely because of the concerns of many members of the public that the Government decided in 1988 to establish the Broadcasting Standards Council. The council acts as a focus for public concern not only about the portrayal of violence but also about the portrayal of sex and about standards of taste and decency in all forms of broadcasting.

The BSC also produces a code of practice which broadcasters must reflect in their own codes. The code was widely debated, not only by the broadcasting industry but also by many interested bodies, such as the National Viewers and Listeners Association and, perhaps most importantly, by ordinary members of the public.

This country is fortunate in having the best broadcasting system in the world. We will not let it be destroyed by a gradual erosion of standards. On that the Government will stand firm.

A number of hon. Members have referred to films. If films are shown on television, the usual television regulatory framework applies. I shall now deal with the precise functions of the regulators. The ITC must draw up and enforce a general code, which includes a carefully thought out section on the portrayal of violence. All ITC licensees are required to ensure that any programmes they transmit comply with that code. If they do not, the ITC can impose a financial penalty, demand an apology, reduce the term of the licence by up to two years, or revoke the licence.

The BBC also maintains guidelines for programme makers. The governors reaffirmed their commitment to maintain standards in the annex to the BBC's licence and agreement, and have produced guidelines for all levels of production staff to which I shall refer later. In summary, the BBC guidelines prohibit the use of gratuitous violence, require that the consequences of violent acts are not overlooked, require attention to the scheduling of programmes with violent content, and give guidance on the use of clear warnings. Perhaps most importantly, the BBC guidelines warn of the dangers of broadcasting material portraying dangerous behaviour, which children might imitate, at times when large numbers of children are watching. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the broadcasters' family viewing policy. We know it as the watershed, which in the United Kingdom is at 9 pm. This

Column 581

means that programmes before the watershed must be suitable for family viewing, while programmes after 9 pm may be suitable for a more adult audience.

The ITC's family viewing policy goes slightly further. It assumes that as the evening progresses there will be fewer children present in the audience and this will be reflected in the content of programmes. But within that there remains the fixed point. Before 9 pm, nothing which is unsuitable for children must be shown. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, again with great experience and the wisdom of many years' interest in the subject, talked about sanitised violence. When my children were younger, I felt that sanitised violence was the insidioius and dangerous violence on television. Therefore, many years ago, I took an interest in it, and I remember speaking about it in a debate in the House some time ago. The Independent Television Commission programme code has addressed the issue as follows :

"There is no evidence that sanitised' or conventional' violence, in which the consequences are concealed, minimised or presented in a ritualistic way, is innocuous. It may be just as dangerous to society to conceal the results of violence or to minimise them as to let people see or hear clearly the full consequences of violent behaviour, however gruesome : what may be better for society may be emotionally more upsetting or more offensive for the individual viewer." That is very good sense.

So much for the regulatory position. Despite the care that we and the regulatory bodies have taken to ensure a strict regulatory regime, I know that many hon. Members believe that the policy is not working. The evidence that I have seen, much of which has been quoted in the debate and of which there is much more, does not support the view that the guidelines are widely flouted by the broadcasters ; nor do I believe that there has been a demonstrable decline in standards. Similarly, we need to look carefully at the available evidence before we jump to the conclusion that there is some automatic link between a perceived drop in standards and any increase in violent crime. There has been much research over the years on the possibility of a link between violent television programmes and violent or criminal behaviour. There are, as one would expect in such a controversial and high-profile field, claims and counter-claims. The balance of research has not produced any conclusive evidence that such a link exists. For each study which seeks to prove a damaging effect on behaviour, there is another to disprove it.

Perhaps even more interesting than the academic research is the research among viewers themselves. The Broadcasting Standards Council has done valuable work in this area, as has the ITC. Hon. Members may well have seen the recent report from the ITC--indeed, the hon. Member for Erdington referred to it--published on 24 March, called "Television : The Public's View 1992". That has produced many interesting findings. Unfortunately, it does not extend to the BBC, but, as I think the hon. Gentleman reminded us, 70 per cent. of the viewers surveyed found nothing offensive on ITV, with 72 per cent. saying the same of Channel 4. Even fewer viewers were offended by satellite and cable. That I found surprising, because so often we are told that there is more that is offensive on satellite and cable. That survey showed that only 4 per cent. of viewers saw violence as a cause of offence. Indeed, the majority of viewers--some 71 per

Column 582

cent.--thought that programme standards had at least been maintained, or even improved. Once again, only 4 per cent. of viewers surveyed criticised the amount of violence.

I realise that surveys involve samples. Sometimes they are self-selected, and sometimes they are people who want to make their views known because they have especially strong views one way or another and are more inclined to answer surveys. Nevertheless, the survey goes some way to helping to put things into perspective. I am reminded, and therefore gently remind my colleagues in the House, that it is often said that the worst judges of what is on television are Members of Parliament, because they hardly ever watch it. There is a grain of truth in that, but we must put things in perspective. John Thaw in "The Sweeney" has been replaced by John Thaw in "Inspector Morse". If hon. Members look closely at their television viewing, they will find other comparisons. "The A-Team", which used to worry me a lot when I had young children, has gone, and so have "The Professionals". Sanitised violence itself has been sanitised, so let us not leap to easy conclusions.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently, television is a powerful medium which must be treated with respect. Common sense suggests that it must have an effect on the perception of the world of at least some of the audience. Broadcasters must exercise caution. They must assume that there may well be some relationship between television and behaviour. It is for that reason that I was especially pleased to see that the BBC was prepared to admit that it had got it wrong in showing that now notorious episode of the drama programme "Casualty". For me, that was a clear example of the type of programme in which broadcasters need to be aware not only of when such material is shown but whether it should be shown at all. I am pleased that that seems to have been taken on board. It was a breath of fresh air--I congratulate him on this--to hear the controller of BBC 1, Alan Yentob, saying of "Casualty" that the BBC got it wrong and would take more care and use more scrutiny to ensure that it understands public sentiment and the public climate. Let us not forget that that is a statement of success--a recognition that things needed to happen and have happened.

We have had enough of violence on our screens. Common sense is beginning to prevail. Programme makers and broadcasters know it. Judging by the comments of Sir Anthony Hopkins, actors have had enough of violence, too.

I should like to turn to another point raised by the survey conducted by the Independent Television Commission. It showed that 68 per cent. of viewers thought that praents should be responsible for children's viewing, with a further 23 per cent. seeing children's viewing as a joint responsibility between the broadcaster and the parents. Only 9 per cent. of viewers thought that broadcasters should be solely responsible.

I say now to that 9 per cent. "Think again". It does not matter whether the programmes that children are watching are in the family living room, in their bedrooms, at a friend's house or on video. Parents know what is suitable for their children. Broadcasters cannot be held responsible for parents who do not take the time to care about what the children watch. For goodness sake : where are the parents when their children are watching all that

Column 583

television ? This is a partnership in which both sides must do their bit, and in which both sides have the option of the on-off switch.

We need to recognise that most television producers are trying hard. Certainly, the BBC has tried hard with its production guidelines, which go into great detail. For example, it suggests that all people involved in production have a responsibility, whether it is the make-up artist deciding how much blood, the editor, the cameraman and the shots which he uses or anyone involved. That is something which must be commended. Not only the controller but everyone involved in the television studio, in scriptwriting, and all the important and technological parts of producing television programmes must be aware of the problem.

As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said, the problem is not easily solved. There are certainly no final solutions to the problem of violence on television. There is no cut and dried solution. Opportunities for viewing and listening will continue to proliferate. Technology is not on our side in respect of the number of channels available. Anyone who goes to the United States of America or a dozen other countries and has flicked through the television channels will know what I mean.

Therefore, we must have particular regard to our approach to the problem. The best way of maintaining the standards that common sense tells us are right is for broadcasters and programme makers to share responsibi-lity with viewers, including parents, and with the regulatory authorities.

Parliament will continue to express its opinion and the Government will continue to listen and monitor the position carefully. We in the Government will not be bullied into any general censorship of the media, but we have shown already that when there is a need for action, we will act.

Column 584

Greater London and the South-East

9.30 pm

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) : Obviously, this is a wide subject and the debate could cover many matters. I shall concentrate on a few aspects of what is happening in London and in particular London's economy. I am sure that if we refer to the recent dismal record Ministers will tell us, as they have done on several recent occasions, that we are talking London and the country down. We must say clearly at the outset that to state the facts and the truth about what is happening to London and the south-east, as well as the rest of the country, is not to talk Britain down. Our constituents in the poorest parts of London--the people represented mainly by Opposition Members--are suffering most. We have no interest whatever in seeing their conditions worsen--quite the opposite.

What we see now in London is unprecedented and causes serious anxiety for not only the short term but the long-term future. To walk around parts of east London, such as the part of London that I represent, is a profoundly depressing experience in many ways. It is depressing to see what has happened to the environment and to public transport, how many people are homeless and what is happening to people as a result of mass unemployment.

In my constituency, I have noticed the change over several years. I have been travelling through Walthamstow Central station for several years. Certainly it has been possible to see people sleeping rough and begging on the streets in certain parts of London for a long time. But that never used to happen in most parts of outer London. Only in recent years has it become an everyday occurrence at the stations that I use every day to see people begging on the steps. It never happend a few years ago in outer London, but it happens all the time now.

While many of the comments about the rundown of the economy could be made about any large city, they are particularly disturbing as they apply to London. What is happening in London now is different from what happened in previous recessions. Clearly, the economic problems did not arise overnight, but the current problems are structural and will not go away simply as a result of a general upturn in the economy, if or whenever it comes. They require action by Government and by local government. One of the questions on which we might perhaps touch at some point in this debate is why there is no longer a strategic authority for London which could be dealing, or helping to deal, with some of these problems.

If we look at what is happening and try to measure the crisis, unemployment is a good element to consider. Certainly unemployment is a tool that has been used by the Government to control inflation ; it is one of the main planks of their policy in controlling inflation. Since April 1990, the beginning of the current recession, unemployment in Greater London has risen from approximately 200,000 to 472,000. That is on the seasonally adjusted figures, not the actual figures, but it is a fair comparison. That represents 20 per cent. of the total increase in unemployment for the whole of the United Kingdom ; 20 per cent. of this has happened in London over the last three years. In that same area, Greater London, we now have about 9,500 vacancies at jobcentres--a ratio of 49 unemployed claimants to every vacancy at a jobcentre.

Column 585

In previous recessions, traditionally, unemployment in London has been lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was in October 1991 that for the first time unemployment in London went above the average for the United Kingdom, and it has stayed above the average ever since. In fact, it is still going up further above the average. Even in the last month, when nationally there was for one month a small drop in unemployment, in Greater London it continued to go up. So we now have unemployment across Greater London of 11.7 per cent., compared with 10.4 per cent. nationally.

Within that total, there are some particularly disturbing trends. First, what happens if we look at this on an area basis? Taking my own constituency as an example, we now have unemployment running officially at 16 per cent. In some wards it is up to 20 per cent. The six east London boroughs--Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Dagenham, and Waltham Forest--put a case to the Government recently for assisted area status, and of course we are still waiting to hear how the assisted areas map will be redrawn. The case that they put showed the depth of the problems in that part of east London, with the second highest unemployment rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. Ninety four per cent. of the electoral wards in those six boroughs have unemployment rates above the United Kingdom average, and very high rates of long-term unemployment, nearly 40 per cent. of the people who are unemployed having been out of work for more than a year. That figure is a fake, of course, because someone who is unemployed goes on to a Government training scheme for maybe just a few months and drops out of the unemployment figures, then comes back off the training scheme, is unemployed again and gets counted as a new claimant. Such people are not counted as long-term unemployed, when the truth is that they are. In that part of east London the job vacancy rate is even worse than the average for Greater London as a whole. With 100 claimants for every job vacancy, is it surprising that people simply give up hope of ever having a job and getting back to work again?

The second point that I want to highlight in regard to unemployment is what is happening to youth unemployment. In my constituency, registered unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is running at 25 per cent. That is the average for east London. In the six boroughs that have applied for assisted area status, there are 17 electoral wards in which male unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is more than 50 per cent. Again, those are just the official figures. We should remember that official figures conceal a great deal. For instance, many 16 and 17-year-olds cannot sign on as claimants. Given that the official figure is more than 50 per cent., one dreads to think about the true figure.

The short-term costs are disastrous. The police in Greater London recognise what is happening to youth crime and are saying that social deprivation contributes to it. Again, it is our constituents in the poor areas who suffer. There are now parts of London, inevitably the poor areas, where it is virtually impossible to get insurance for one's property, so again those living in the poorest areas are worst affected by crime. Unemployment is affecting schools. It is hardly surprising that when 15 and 16-year-olds know what is waiting for them when they

Column 586

leave school, they are reluctant to become seriously involved in education or to care what is happening, and many drop out or play truant. To compound all those problems, there are cuts in local authority services, particularly non-statutory services such as youth services which are designed to serve those at the bottom of the heap.

The long-term consequences of youth unemployment are incalculable. It seriously worries me to talk to people whom I respect who have worked with young people all their lives and who say that they foresee enormous long- term problems. They say that there is a lost generation of young people who have never worked and will never work because after five or 10 years of unemployment they will become unemployable. Training in low skills for low- skilled jobs which do not exist offers absolutely nothing. The serious long -term implications will not be solved simply by creating new jobs. There is a great deal to be done for those who have been out of work since they left school.

The third element which I want to highlight and which is also particularly relevant to my constituency involves what is happening to the black and ethnic minority population, who inevitably suffer disproportionately from unemployment. In east London, again in the six boroughs that I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that 45 per cent. of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population is out of work. That is the most disadvantaged group of all. When one considers the racial disadvantage alongside the age structure of the Pakistani population--which in my constituency is the largest in London, and it is a young population so it is affected by youth unemployment--there are bound to be serious long-term consequences. Another point that I have raised with Ministers recently is that grants under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which are specifically designed to address racial disadvantage among people from the new Commonwealth are being cut. At the same time as the problems are multiplying, the grants are being cut.

In the past few years, public investment has been cut, everything has been left to market forces and the option has been to privatise, where possible. That has led to the decimation of London's manufacturing industry. In the second half of the 1980s, half of all the manufacturing jobs lost in the United Kingdom were from Greater London. Walthamstow and the Lea valley used to be a thriving centre of the furniture trade, but now not one factory is left. Similarly, virtually all the light engineering industries have disappeared. Discounting local authorities, the health service and other public bodies, I am convinced that I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of employers with more than 100 employees in my constituency.

The London economy is now imbalanced, because in the 1980s it became far too reliant on the boom in the financial sector. When it caught a cold at the end of the 1980s, London suffered

disproportionately. Four out of five jobs in London are in the service sector and a high proportion are found in finance, banking and insurance. What is the future for that sector? What will happen if the European central bank is not located in London? I do not believe that many of the large merchant banks or finance houses will feel any particular loyalty to London or the country if they believe that there are more profits to be made and business to be done elsewhere.

Next Section

Home Page